A registered sale deed is presumed valid and can only be contested with strong evidence; mere assertions without substantial proof do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Defendants 3 and 4 in a suit for declaration, cancellation of document and consequential injunction, have come up before this court aggrieved by the reversal of the Judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, in O.S No.216/2010, dismissing the suit.

2. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 4 Acres of land comprised in Re Survey No.338, Periya Village in Mananthavady Taluk. The plaint schedule property standing as a single holding was derived by the plaintiff by virtue of Sale Deed No.1110/2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Mananthavady. The 2nd defendant, who is the husband of the elder sister of the plaintiff, had certain financial transactions, had approached the 1st defendant for a sale of land for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. During the first week of April 2009, defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and informed that the 2nd defendant, who came into agreement with the 1^st defendant for a sale of 2^nd defendant’s property having 1 Acres 74 Cents for a total consideration of 10,50,000/-, and out of which the 2^nd defendant received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the 1^st defendant as advance sale consideration. But, due to certain difficulties the said transaction could not be taken forward. The 1^st defendant thus demanded the repayment of the amount and the accordingly, the 2^nd defendant agreed to return back the advance sale consideration received by him. Accordingly, the 2^nd defendant paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the 1^st defendant and sought time to return the balance amount of Rs.5,80,000/-. Thereafter, in terms of the mediation talks between the defendants 1 and 2 in the presence of respectable mediators, the issues were amicably settled. As per the mediation, the 2^nd defendant sought more time to return the above amount. In terms of the said mediation settlement, the 2^nd defendant had issued a cheque infavour of the 1^st defendant. The plainti was further informed that for obeying the conditions of mediation, the plaintiff was required to register an assignment deed of the property infavour of the 1^st defendant and that the defendants 1 and 2 further assured the plaintiff, that the registration of the above deed was only as a security and in no way the transfer and ownership or possession over the plaint scheduled property will pass to the 1^st defendant. The plainti representation and assurance given by the defendants 1 and 2, expressed her willingness to execute the assignment deed and accordingly, on 17.04.2009 along with defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the SRO Mananthavady and affixed her signature in the assignment deed No.1519/2009. It is contended that the plaintiff did not receive any consideration from defendants 1 and 2, since it was only a security document. During the first week of July, 2010, when the plaintiff along with her husband and some workers were doing manual work at the plaint scheduled property, defendants 3 and 4 along with the other persons approached the plaintiff and informed that they have purchased the plaint scheduled property and they are the owners of the property. The plaintiff thereafter made enquires about the fact and understood that the assurance given by the defendants 1 and 2 were violated and the 1^st defendant executed an assignment deed No.370/2010 of S.R.O Mananthavady in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Thus according to the plaintiff, the Sale Deed No.1519/2009 of S.R.O Mananthavady executed by the plaintiff is a sham document and was never intended to take place and can only be construed as security document. Thus, consequently, the sale deed No.370/2010 dated 23.01.2010 is also sought to be declared as null and void.

3. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit, the 1^st defendant denied the averments contained in the plaint and contended that there was no assurance to the plaintiff as claimed. The 2nd defendant on contrary supported the claim of the plaintiff and cont