The registered Sale Deed could not be overridden by any oral agreement, and the appellant failed to prove that the Sale Deed was executed as security for the loan amount.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal had been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff against dismissal of Civil Suit No. 35/2009 vide Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Aizawl.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that as the appellant was in need of money, she approached the respondent for a loan of Rs. 12 lakhs in the month of December, 2008. The respondent agreed to give the loan and stated that the loan agreement would be in the form of an oral agreement. However, a Sale Deed would have to be made for the appellant?s land and building covered by LSC No. AZL. 91 of 1974, which would be used as collateral security for repayment of the loan. The further case of the appellant is that the respondent assured the appellant that the Sale Deed would only be used to secure the loan amount and that the Sale Deed would be cancelled once the loan amount was repaid. Accordingly, on 10.12.2008, Sale Deed was executed between the parties and the respondent handed over a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the appellant. The interest payable on the loan amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was 10% per month. Out of the Rs. 15 lakhs loan, Rs. 3 lakh was returned by the appellant to the respondent, as interest on the Rs. 15 lakhs loan for the months of December, 2008 and January, 2009. The appellant?s further case is that the appellant was to return the entire loan amount with interest within 6 months w.e.f. 10.12.2008.

4. On 10.06.2009, the appellant requested the respondent to receive Rs. 21 lakhs, which included the principal amount and interest and to return the LSC (land document) which had been put up as collateral security and to cancel the Sale Deed dated 10.12.2008. The respondent however refused to receive the money, return the LSC and declined to cancel the Sale Deed dated 10.12.2008. Further, the respondent asked the appellant to leave the property. The appellant consequently filed Civil Suit No. 35/2009 stating that the appellant had executed the Sale Deed, due to the misrepresentation made by the respondent and that there would be no actual sale of the land covered by the LSC No. AZL 91/1974, as the same would treated as collateral security for the loan/money given by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant thus prayed for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 10.12.2008 be declared void and that the Sale Deed be cancelled. The further prayer of the appellant was to allow the appellant to take back the LSC which was put up as collateral security, upon repayment of the loan amount.

5. The respondent submitted his written statement in Civil Suit No. 35/2009 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground the Sale Deed had been executed by the parties and as there was no infirmity with the registration of the same. The respondent?s stand was that the land and building covered by LSC No. AZL 91/1974 had been sold by the appellant to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs, which had been received by the appellant. The money had not been given as a loan to the appellant and that there was no oral agreement made between the parties. Also, no part of the Rs. 15 lakhs had been given back to the respondent. Further, the appellant had also executed the Government document, i.e., "Hmun Inleina Lehkha", which was also a kind of a Sale Deed, besides being the standard form used for transfer of ownership of the land from the name of the seller to the name of the buyer. As the appellant was bound by the same, the stand taken by the appellant that there was no sale of the land and building was a completely false and mischievous statement.

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed seven issues, which are as follows:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style.

2. Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of estoppel and whether the suit