JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The husband is the appellant. The original petition was filed by the husband claiming a decree for declaration, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband”, “wife” and “builder”. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.02.1984. Three children were born in their wedlock. The marriage was dissolved on 21.03.2001 by the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance. Originally, the husband instituted a suit before the Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, for the same reliefs as in the present original petition. A counterclaim was also filed by the wife. The parties adduced evidence. After adducing evidence, on 22.01.2010, the original petition filed by the husband was allowed and the counterclaim was disallowed. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in RFA No. 226 of 2010. This Court set aside the judgment dated 22.01.2010 holding that the Sub Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter and accordingly, directed the Sub Court to return the plaint. Accordingly, the plaint and the counterclaim were re-presented before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The records were called for. The parties did not adduce any fresh evidence. Thereafter, the Family Court, after an elaborate consideration of the issues, dismissed the original petition filed by the husband and allowed the counterclaim filed by the wife. 4. The issue centers around a flat booked in the project of the builder, Pioneer Shopping complex Ltd. According to the husband, he had booked a flat in the project of the builder at Marine Drive, Ernakulam, in the name of the wife in 1993; and for the construction and completion of the flat, he had paid the entire sale consideration in instalments, out of his hard earned money in Dubai. He was in Dubai for the past 30 years and the entire amount was paid through ANZ Grindlays Bank and also by effecting payment directly. He alleged that the wife had not spent any amount for purchasing the flat and she was only a namelender and was not having any independent income. It was the case of the husband that the records of the builder would show that the entire amount was paid by the husband. Their marital relationship got strained and they were residing separately and thus, they obtained a decree of divorce from Dubai. It was the case of the husband that the records of the builder would show that the entire amount was paid by the husband. Their marital relationship got strained and they were residing separately and thus, they obtained a decree of divorce from Dubai. The husband claimed that the property tax and maintenance charges are being paid by him and a telephone is also installed in the flat in his name. Though a letter was issued to the builder to register the flat in his name, no reply was received. He apprehended forceful eviction by the wife from the flat. Hence, he filed a petition claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that he had paid the entire purchase value for the petition schedule flat and he is entitled to get it registered in his name. He also sought for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the builder to transfer the title and ownership in his favour by registering a document. Further, he claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the wife and her men from forcibly evicting him from the flat. 5. The wife filed a written statement through the power of attorney holder, who is her son. The first contention raised by the wife is that in the original petition, the husband had shown an address, which was not in existence. At the time of filing the original petition, divorce was already granted and still he addressed her as wife in the original petition. The wife further contended that he used to abuse and assault her in public; he was involved in criminal activities and was arrested on many occasions; and he never took care of the wife and the children. According to her, she was working at Sharjah and was a resident therein; the husband did not spend any amount for purchasing the flat; the same was booked by the wife; all payments were made by her; the allotment of flat and car parking were in her name; only the registration of the property is yet to be done; and the husband has no right in registering the flat in his name. It is contended that after the divorce was obtained, the husband pleaded to the elder son to permit him to reside in the flat until he gets another place for accommodation and thus, he was permitted to stay there till he gets an alternate arrangement. It is further contended that the husband also undertook to make regular maintenance and payment of electricity charges and it was on account of the permission granted by the wife that he is using the flat; and thereafter, he proceeded with the case against the wife. The wife also contended that the telephone connection was taken 10 years back while they were together as husband and wife. She denied the contention that her relatives threatened him to evict him from the property. She claimed that she is the absolute owner of the flat and the entire instalments were paid by her and hence, she raised the counterclaim, claiming a decree directing the husband to vacate the petition schedule flat and also for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the husband from forcibly entering into the petition schedule flat. She also claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the petition scheduled flat. 6. The builder, who is the second respondent, also filed a written statement, contending that the flat was allotted in the wife’s name on her request; and in 1993, the wife entered into an agreement for sale with the promoter for purchase of the flat in question; and she has performed her part of the agreement by paying the entire sale consideration to the builder; and hence, the builder is liable to register the petition schedule flat in favour of the wife. 7. The Family Court, after an elaborate consideration of the issue, dismissed the original petition filed by the husband and allowed the counterclaim filed by the wife, granting a decree of mandatory injunction directing the husband to vacate the petition schedule flat. The wife was also allowed to realize damage @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the husband for unauthorized use and occupation of the petition schedule flat from 01.09.2009 onwards with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the written statement with counterclaim by the wife till the date of eviction. Aggrieved by this, the husband has come up in appeal. 8. Aggrieved by this, the husband has come up in appeal. 8. We have heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Anoop B. Nair, the learned counsel for the husband; and Sri.M.P.Ramnath, the learned counsel for the wife. The following issues arise for consideration: a) Whether the Family Court could have relied on the evidence adduced by the parties in the earlier round of litigation, after the re-presentation of the plaint? b)Whether the husband is entitled to get a decree for declaration, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction? c)Whether the decree on the counter claim warrants any interference? 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband, at the threshold, argued that the impugned judgment of the Family Court is not legally sustainable since the Family Court did not permit both sides to adduce fresh evidence after the records were called for from the trial court. The learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, submitted that it was on the submission of both parties that the Family Court proceeded with the case without permitting to adduce fresh evidence. 10. A perusal of the proceedings sheet reveal that the husband had filed IA No. 576 of 2015 before the Family Court, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “3. This Hon’ble Court has now posted the case for evidence afresh. It is respectfully submitted that evidence already adduced and recorded by Hon’ble Sub Court may be taken in and recorded as evidence properly adduced in this case. The trial of case is not vitiated biased and prejudiced. The character of evidence would not change and its validity would not be affected and hence evidence adduced in Civil Court may be accepted and acted upon this case as being properly recorded before a competent judicial authority. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to receive in and record the evidence of petition adduced before Hon’ble Sub Court Ernakulam in OS 473/2008.” It is also seen that the wife submitted before the Family Court that she has no objection to the petition filed by the husband and accordingly, the Family Court allowed IA No. 576 of 2015. It is evident that, though the Family Court posted the case for evidence, it is on the request of both the parties that the Family Court proceeded with the case relying on the evidence adduced by them before the trial court. Hence, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband that the impugned judgment of the Family Court is not legally sustainable since the Family Court did not grant an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence, does not deserve any merit. 11. According to the husband, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.02.1984 and they were relatives and they decided to purchase a flat in the project of the builder at Marine Drive, Ernakulam; and the said flat was booked in the wife’s name in 1993. It is alleged that the entire sale consideration was paid by him through ANZ Grindlays bank and also by effecting payment directly. In order to prove that the flat was purchased by the husband, he relied on Exts.A1 and A9 documents. Ext.A1 is a money transfer bill issued from ANZ Grindlays Bank evidencing initial payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the husband to the builder in April, 1994. Ext.A9 is a letter dated 17.04.1993 sent by the husband to one Adv.Hritwik Kattak regarding the enclosure of DD for Rs.6,000/- drawn in the Baroda Bank for underground car parking. According to the husband, Adv.Hritwik Kattak was a lawyer dealing with the property. On the other hand, the wife relied on Exts.B4 to B22, which are the receipts, letters and bills issued by the builder in the name of the wife. The husband had given evidence as PW1 and also adduced evidence of PW2, who was the Administrative Manager of the builder during 1993-95, and PW3, who was the Accountant of the builder during 1992-2000. The wife did not mount the box. Her son, who is the power of attorney holder, has deposed on behalf of the wife. The husband had deposed that he had paid the entire amount for the flat by utilizing his hard earned money while he was working abroad. However, both sides have not produced any document to prove the source for payment of costs of the flat to the builder. While RW1/DWI, son of the wife, was cross-examined, he deposed that his mother was employed abroad. However, both sides have not produced any document to prove the source for payment of costs of the flat to the builder. While RW1/DWI, son of the wife, was cross-examined, he deposed that his mother was employed abroad. In page 11 of the cross examination, RW1 son testified that before 2000, his mother had been working for Hassan Makkar as a saleswoman since 1990. He also deposed that his father was not employed at that time and he was running a company, but there was no income and the company was for a namesake. He further deposed that when his mother/wife was taken abroad, her status was shown as ‘housemaid’ in the visa and his father/husband was not having sufficient income to take a family visa. So, it has come out in the evidence of RW1, that the wife was working abroad at the time when the flat was purchased, though no documentary evidence has been adduced to prove the same. 12. On a perusal of Ext.A1 money transfer bill, it is seen that the applicant’s name is shown as, “K.S.Jayagopalan”, the husband, by which an amount Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the builder as part payment for apartment purchase. The receipt is dated 08.04.1994. The wife contended that the husband was not even aware of the total consideration to be paid for the flat and it was also pointed out that in the valuation portion of the plaint, he claimed only Rs.1,50,000/-. According to her, the total cost of the flat was Rs.10,37,000/- and all the receipts produced are in her name other than Ext.A1. No documentary evidence has been adduced to prove the wife’s source of income for payment for the flat other than the deposition of her son as RW1. The husband also has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the source for payment of the cost of flat other than Ext.A1. According to the husband, the payments were made through ANZ Grindlays Bank, however, he did not care to produce any proof for such payments. In the written statement filed by the builder, it is stated that the flat was allotted to the wife since she performed her part of agreement by paying the entire sale consideration. If the payments were made by the husband, it was the builder to say that the payments were made by the husband. In the written statement filed by the builder, it is stated that the flat was allotted to the wife since she performed her part of agreement by paying the entire sale consideration. If the payments were made by the husband, it was the builder to say that the payments were made by the husband. Though the husband has raised a contention that the wife was a namelender and the entire payments were made by him, evidence adduced by the husband is not sufficient enough to prove the same. The entire materials on record, especially, the receipts produced as well as the deposition of RW1/son of the parties, probablise the case of the wife that the payments were made by her for purchase of the flat. There is nothing on record to prove otherwise. The Family Court, after appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the claim put forward by the husband and allowed the counterclaim raised by the wife. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 13. As against the damages awarded to the wife @ Rs.10,000/-per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the petition schedule flat, the husband has not raised any contention other than the contention that the wife is not entitled for the same. The wife had claimed damages @ 10,000/- per month with interest @ 12% per annum for the unauthorized use and occupation of the petition schedule flat, claiming that after divorce on 21.03.2001, the husband was permitted to reside in the flat as requested by her elder son. The husband claimed that he was paying maintenance as well as electricity charges due in respect of the flat. According to the wife, though notice was issued to him seeking to vacate the flat, he has not done so, and she revoked permission to use the flat on 22.07.2009 and hence, claimed damages from 01.09.2009 onwards. However, she did not mount the box. Even in the proof affidavit, the husband has no case that the flat did not fetch that much rent during the relevant period. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction granted by the Family Court towards damages. However, we find it just and proper that the period for which the damages are payable, is limited to the date of filing the counterclaim till the date of eviction. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction granted by the Family Court towards damages. However, we find it just and proper that the period for which the damages are payable, is limited to the date of filing the counterclaim till the date of eviction. Accordingly, we hold that the wife will be entitled to get damages only from the date of filing the counterclaim till the date of eviction with interest @ 6% per annum. We decline interference with the rest of the reliefs granted by the Family Court. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The wife shall be entitled to realise damages from the husband @ Rs.10,000/- per month with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the counterclaim till the date of eviction. The impugned judgment and decree are modified as above. In all other respects, the impugned judgment and decree shall stand affirmed.