The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the sale deeds (Ext.A1 and Ext.A2) was determined based on the arrangement between the parties regarding re-conveyance, as evidenced by the clear admissions in the written statement of the first defendant.

Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S. No. 1390 of 2004 followed by those of the III Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No. 200 of 2006, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1390/2004 has come with this second appeal. The suit is one for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. Through the relief of declaration sought for, the plaintiff wanted to get Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds declared as null and void, and also that the same are not binding on the plaintiff. Through the mandatory injunction sought for, the plaintiff wanted to get re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property from the defendants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The plaintiff wanted to go abroad, for which he was in dire need of money. He approached the first defendant money lender, and according to the plaintiff, he initially borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for which, he along with his mother had to execute Ext.A1 sale deed in respect of the four cents of property situated at Vattiyurkavu, Thiruvananthapuram, on condition that the property would be re-conveyed on the payment of the principal amount and the interest. Again, the plaintiff wanted Rs. 30,000/- more. That amount was also willingly lent by the first defendant for which the plaintiff and his mother had to execute Ext.A2 sale deed in respect of the remaining four more cents of property which is also lying contiguously with the four cents of property covered by Ext.A1. The residential building of the plaintiff is also situated in the property covered by Ext.A2.

4. It was specifically agreed to between the parties that on payment of the principal amount and its interest, the entire properties would be re-conveyed. According to the plaintiff, he had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- through Demand Drafts and another amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in cash. Accordingly, the entire amount was repaid. Even though the first defendant has agreed to re-convey the property, he retracted from his stand and clandestinely made arrangements with the 3rd defendant. The first defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother-in-law who is the 2nd defendant in respect of the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The 2nd defendant swiftly executed Ext.B1 sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the 3rd defendant on the strength of the said power of attorney.

5. The first defendant contended that Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds were obtained by him as sale deeds and not by way of security. At the same time, he admitted the money transactions between him and the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, through two instalments, the plaintiff had borrowed a total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from him. At first the plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as the first instalment, and the plaintiff along with his mother, executed Ext.A1 in favour of the first defendant. It has come out from the pleadings in the written statement that the first defendant had agreed that the property would be re-conveyed on the payment of the principal amount and its interest. Such an arrangement is, in fact, admitted in the written statement of the first defendant.

6. According to the first defendant, when an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was borrowed by the plaintiff from the first defendant as the second instalment, Ext.A2 sale deed was obtained in favour of the four cents of property lying contiguously with the four cents of property covered by Ext.A1. The very same arrangement was once again made between the parties and according to the first defendant, he had unwillingly agreed that the properties would be re-conveyed on the payment of the principal amount and interest. According to the first defendant, the amounts were not repaid. An amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- alone was repaid and the balance amount was not repaid in spite of repeated demands and therefore, he