Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.67/1999 of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur filed by the respective defendants. R.F.A.No.615/2009 is filed by the first defendant, R.F.A. No.161/2009 is filed by the second defendant, R.F.A.No.272/2009 is filed by the third defendant and R.F.A. No.439/2009 is filed by the fourth defendant. The plaintiff is the first respondent in all the appeals. We are treating R.F.A.No.161/2009 as the leading case.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of Ext.A2 document, initially. Thereafter the plaint was amended to include more reliefs, viz. for cancellation of the documents executed by the first respondent in favour of defendants 2, 3 and 4 and also for specific performance of an oral agreement. The suit was originally filed against the first defendant, being the second respondent in R.F.A.No.161/2009.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the appeals, are the following: Plaint schedule property is having an extent of 2.9 cents. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the land for construction of shopping complex for his business and for letting them out for rent. He is a barber by profession. Ext.A1 dated 16.4.1997 is the document of title under which he purchased the property. The property abuts National Highway near Thrissur town.

4. For raising funds for construction, the plaintiff approached the husband of the first defendant, Shri Rajendran and after he intervened, the first defendant agreed to arrange a loan of Rs.51,000/-. As a security for the transaction, she insisted for assigning the property in her name. The first defendant and her husband assured the plaintiff that the property will be reconveyed as and when the loan amount is repaid with 15% interest. Accordingly, Ext.A2 document was executed on 14.7.1998 in favour of the first defendant. The assignment deed executed by the plaintiff was also handed over to the plaintiff along with other prior documents. After obtaining licence from the concerned Grama Panchayat and an order from the District Collector for the construction, the construction was completed by November, 1998. The three shop rooms have been numbered as 434-A, 434-B and 434-C in Ward No.11 of Nadathara Grama Panchayat. He was issued ownership certificate and building tax was also paid. After the plaintiff approached the first defendant for discharging the loan amount, she sought time for reconveyance and wanted him to fetch title deeds of the properties for the reconveyance on 20.1.1999 and on that day the plaintiff approached the first defendant with the money, but she was reluctant to do so and demanded the market value of the property for reconveyance. Even though the husband of the first defendant was approached, that also did not yield any result.

5. According to the plaintiff, he is in actual possession of the property and though Ext.A2 document was executed, it was done only to furnish security for the loan amount. At the time of execution of Ext.A2, the market value of the property was more than Rs.One Lakh per cent, but only a sum of Rs.51,000/-was shown in the document as it was executed as a security.

6. By way of an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff further prayed for issuance of a direction to the first defendant to reassign the property to the plaintiff and to fix a date for registration of the assignment deed and in case of unwillingness of the first defendant, the same may be executed through the intervention of the court.

7. The first defendant denied the allegations raised by the plaintiff in toto. After the execution of assignment deed, there was no oral understanding to reconvey the property to the plaintiff. She denied the averment that the deed was executed as security for the loan transaction. Later, the property was assigned to defendants 2 and 3 who are in possession of the same. The building was constructed by the first defendant and others. The second defendant, in the wri