The court affirmed that a Sale Deed executed with consideration is valid, and contradictory claims regarding its nature cannot coexist in a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to reconvey a property, with alternate reliefs to cancel Ext.A1 Sale Deed or to declare it as null and void or as sham, and other reliefs, was dismissed by the trial court.

The additional plaintiffs 3 to 5 are in appeal.

2. According to the original plaintiff, the defendant is a businessman doing business abroad in UAE. The original plaintiff's daughter-Preethy, and the defendant, had business dealings. In connection with such business, to enable the defendant to avail a loan, the original plaintiff executed Ext.A1 Sale Deed(Ext.B1 is the original) in favour of the defendant on 11.03.2014. It was agreed that the property will be reconveyed within a period of one year. No sale consideration passed under Ext.A1. The defendant failed to reconvey the property. Accordingly the suit is filed claiming the following reliefs:-

(i) Specific performance of the oral agreement dated 11.03.2014 to reconvey the property, or

(ii) Cancel Ext.A1=B1 Sale Deed, or

(iii) To declare the document as null and void, and 

(iv) Prohibitory injunction against trespass, and 

(v) Mandatory injunction to return the original of Ext.A1 Sale Deed (Ext.B1).

3. The original plaintiff died pending the suit and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 5.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that, original plaintiff's daughter-Preethy, did not have any business transaction with him. He is a business man in UAE. He understood that original plaintiff's daughter- Preethy had an agreement with the Nilamboor Kovilakam for purchase of a property. The defendant agreed to purchase of one-half of the property on payment of the proportionate consideration. The property was one notified as an ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act). Preethy was to get it excluded from the notification. By June 2012 it was realised that Preethy would not be able to get the property excluded from the EFL notification. 5. By that time, the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 2.25 crores to Preethy under the agreement. Thereupon Preethy agreed to sell her property having an extent of 51.39 acres to the defendant's wife Suma for a consideration of Rs. 2.5 crores. By 24.10.2013 the defendant had paid a total amount of Rs. 2.5 crores to Preethy. Since the property was subjected to mortgage with the UCO Bank, Kottayam branch, the sale could not fructify. Thereupon, the original plaintiff intervened and agreed to sell his 74.54 Ares of property (plaint schedule property) for which the defendant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 62 lakhs. The amount was paid and Ext.A1 Sale Deed was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The alleged oral agreement for reconveyance was denied. The contentions that Ext.A1 is null and void and that it is a sham document, were denied. It was contended that the original plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

6. The original plaintiff filed a replication denying the alleged agreement between Preethy and Nilamboor Kovilakam. So also he contended that he had no knowledge of any agreement between Preethy and defendant's wife.

7. The trial court upheld Ext.A1 Sale Deed. The alleged oral agreement was negatived and the suit was dismissed.

8. We have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and Sri.T.Krishnanunni the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Anil Kumar Sreedharan, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Does the evidence on record establish that Ext.A1 Sale Deed was executed in the circumstances as claimed by the original plaintiff?

(ii) Does the evidence on record establish that