The validity and consequences of a sale deed, including the transfer of title and possession, must be raised and challenged within the statutory time limit to be considered valid.

JUDGMENT :

Feeling aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.906/2011 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 22.12.2020 and its confirmation as per decree and judgment in A.S.No.34/2021 dated 07.12.2022 by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the defendant in the above Suit has preferred this Second Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs are the respondents in this case.

2. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court, as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’ hereafter for easy reference.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant on admission.

4. Perused the judgments under challenge and the records of the lower court.

5. This Suit originated, according to the plaintiffs, when the defendant encroached upon the plaint schedule property and started to reside at the building situated therein after breaking open the lock of the building after parting title and possession of the same in view of sale deed No.2371/2008 of Thiruvallom S.R.O in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought perpetual as well as mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

6. The defendant filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that sale deed No.2371/2008 is a sham document and the same was executed as a collateral security for a financial transaction. The defendant never parted possession of the plaint schedule property. Criminal case was launched since the plaintiffs had fabricated documents.

7. After raising necessary issues for determination, the trial court ventured the matter. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendant. Ext.C1 was also marked as court exhibit.

8. On scrutiny of the evidence, after appraising the rival contentions, the learned Munsiff decreed the Suit as under:

“i) Let the defendant be directed to vacate from the plaint schedule property by a decree of mandatory injunction.

ii) Let the plaintiffs be entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant.

iii) Let the defendant be restrained by a decree of perpetual injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, after she is evicted.

iv) Let the plaintiffs be allowed to recover costs of the suit from the defendant.”

The verdict of the trial court was challenged before the District Court and the District Court as per decree and judgment in A.S.No.34/2021, concurred the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiffs have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. According to him, when the defendant was in dire need of money, defendant executed a document styled as a sale deed dated 23.02.2005 and at the time of execution of the said document in favour of the 1st plaintiff, another agreement dated 23.02.2005 marked as Ext.B1, also was executed whereby it has been recited that the above said sale deed was executed as security and on payment of the money borrowed by the defendant from the 1st plaintiff along with interest, the right over the property would be re-conveyed in favour of the defendant. Therefore, Ext.A1 sale deed No.2371/2008, executed by Sasidharan in favour of the plaintiffs and the prior documents are sham documents. It is argued that the defendant has been possessing and enjoying the plaint schedule property and as per Ext.A1 or as per the document executed by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff neither the title nor the possession of the defendant over the plaint schedule property was transferred. Therefore, the Suit must fail and the verdicts under challenge require interference by admitting this Second Appeal.

10. On perusal of the records, the specific case put up by the plaintiffs is that at the time of execution of Ext.A1, the defen