K.A.Mohamed Shafi, J :

1. The plaintiff in O.S. 269 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The suit is filed for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property as per the registered assignment deed dated 23.5.89 and the defendant has got only a tenancy right to reside in the house situated in the plaint schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or doing anything detrimental to the plaintiff's right in and possession of the plaint schedule property.

2. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the defendant/respondent assigned the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.53,000/- in his favour as per Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 23.5.89 and executed Ext.A2 rent agreement in favour of the appellant for residence in the house situated in the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. It is also contended that since the respondent's son in law demanded for brokerage and the appellant refused to pay the same, the respondents did not give possession of the property to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent executed Ext.B1 revocation deed of the assignment on 29.5.89. Hence the appellant sent Ext.A3 registered lawyer notice dated 7.6.89 and instituted the above suit for necessary reliefs.

3. The defendant/respondent contended that there was no intention to sell the plaint schedule property to the appellant. When the respondent approached the appellant for a loan of Rs.53,000/-, the appellant insisted execution of a registered document as security for the loan. Therefore the respondent executed Ext.A1 assignment deed, but the appellant refused to pay the consideration as promised and therefore he has executed Ext.B1 revocation deed. He has also contended that Ext.B2 rent bond is fabricated by the appellant on blank signed stamp papers obtained by him.

4. After trial, the lower court found that the evidence revealed that the defendant has not received consideration and the plaintiff has not paid consideration as alleged in the plaint and therefore the plaintiff has not obtained any right in or possession of the plaint schedule property and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has come up with the above appeal before this court.

5. Eventhough, the respondent has contended that Ext.A2 rent bond is concocted in some blank signed stamp papers obtained by the appellant from the respondent, the lower court negatived that contention of the respondent. That finding of the lower court is not challenged by the respondent.

6. The counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the burden is heavy upon the respondent, who contended that Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 23.5.89 executed by him is a document not intended to sell the property, but only a security for the loan to be advanced by the appellant as against the specific recitals in the document, to establish those contentions, the lower court wrongly cast the burden upon the appellant without placing the burden upon the respondent who seeks to cancel the registered document. But the counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had pleaded total lack of consideration in this case which is the specific and valid plea available to him under proviso 1 to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and therefore the lower court is perfectly justified in finding that the assignment deed is not supported by any consideration from the available evidence on record.

7. In Ext.A1 assignment deed it is clearly recited that the entire germ, possessory and improvement rights in the property scheduled to the document are assigned by the respondent in favour of the appellant for a consideration of Rs.53,000/- which is received by the respondent from the appellant in cash. Ext.B1 is the first document executed after Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is dated 23.5.89. Ext.B1 is executed by the respondent on 29.5.89 cancelling Ext.A1