Registered sale deeds hold presumptive validity and must be proven void by substantial evidence, placing the burden on the party claiming undue influence or lack of consideration.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The second appeal and the original petition arise out of execution of the judgment and decree in O.S No.101/2013 on the files of III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode, as confirmed by the III Additional District Court, Kozhikode, in A.S. No.66/2015. The first appeal arises out the judgment in O.S No.477/2011 on the files of III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode .

2. The fate of O.P.(C) No.2479/2018 and RSA No.1240/2017 will depend upon the decision of this Court in R.F.A No.446/2018 and hence it is felt expedient to consider the R.F.A No.446/2018 first.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the first appeal are as follows :-

The appellants are the legal heirs of one Balagangadharan Vaidyar, who is the husband of the 1^st plaintiff and father of the remaining plaintiffs. Late Balagangadharan Vaidyar derived right title and interest over the plaint schedule property by virtue of purchase certificate No.215/1981, issued as per order in S.M No.257/1980 of the Land Tribunal, Beypore. He had constructed a building and was manufacturing traditional Ayurvedic Medicines. He had applied for a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation and the District Industries Centre, Kozhikode, for purchase of machineries. On default of the respective loans, when recovery proceedings were initiated, the plaintiffs were approached by one Sudeesh Babu, who agreed to finance the amount required for discharging the liability and accordingly, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was advanced to the 1^st plainti the liability. With the said amount secured by the 1^st plaintiff, the loan from the Kerala Finance Corporation was discharged by the 1st plaintiff. However, the documents were not released by the Kerala Finance Corporation on the pretext that the loan from the District Industries Centre is also required to be repaid. Accordingly, the plaintiffs borrowed some of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 1^st defendant and settled the liabilities. Believing the words of the 1^st defendant, the original documents in relation to the plaint schedule property was entrusted to the 1^st defendant. However, the 1^st defendant made the plainti that it is not sufficient, if the original documents are held as security and that a nominal sale deed has to be executed by the plaintiffs as a security for the amount advanced by them. Accordingly, believing 1^st defendant, the plainti executed a sale deed on 20.01.2011 in favour of the 2^nd defendant. Though Rs.16,00,000/- is the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, the plaintiffs allege that, they have not received the aforesaid consideration and thus the sale deed is vitiated and a sham document never intended to be put in operation. The plaintiffs after realising that the defendants had no intention to re-convey the property, issued a lawyer's notice on 17.06.2011, requiring the defendants to re-convey the property. Since, the defendants refused, the suit was filed initially for declaring that the sale deed dated 20.01.2011 is a fabricated document and signed in the blank paper and never intended to be operated and further the registered sale deed No.253/2011 dated 20.01.2011 executed in the name of the 2^nd defendant is intended to be as a security. Later, the plaint was amended and the prayer was confined to cancellation of the document No.253/2011. The defendants appeared and resisted the suit contending that none of the