The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act in property disputes, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the concept of trust in property disputes.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the first defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.77 of 2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif, Alandur in O.S.No.2838 of 1997.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix as stood exposited from the records would run thus:

a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.2838 of 1997 seeking the following reliefs:

- to direct the defendants to return the original sale deed dated 20.4.89 registered as document No.1528/89 before the S.R.O.Alandur, in respect of Plot No.41, comprised in S.No.93/4, Puzhithivakkam Village, Madipakkam, Chengai-Anna District more fully described in the schedule under written to the plaintiff and for costs.

(extracted as such)

b) Whereupon, the first defendant filed written statement with counter claim, claiming as under: - for a direction to the plaintiff to pay Rs.38,481/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the amount of Rs.30,300/- from date of plaint till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a till realisation of decree amount.

- for a charge on the schedule mentioned property for the recovery of the decree amount.

- for costs.

(extracted as such)

Separate written statement was filed by the second defendant.

c) Whereupon, relevant issues were framed by the trial court.

d) The plaintiff-Palani examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

e) Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim. As against which appeal was filed only by the plaintiff and not by the defendants.

f) The appellate court decreed the original suit as against which, the first defendant preferred this second appeal on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the appellate court without going into the factual aspects involved in the matter, simply invoked Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that quite contrary and antithetical to the averments found set out in the sale deed i.e. the certified copy of Ex.A1 the defendants cannot plead anything and accordingly, decreed the suit, directing the first defendant to return the original sale deed dated 20.04.1989 and on failure to do so, D1 to pay a sum of Rs.19,250/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of plaint till realisation and according to the first defendant, such a finding given by the appellate court was erroneous. As such, suggesting the following substantial questions of law, the appellant, so to say, the first defendant has filed this second appeal.

1. Is it right on the part of the first appellate court to conclude that the plaintiff had paid the consideration for the sale deed by merely relying on the recital with regard to the consideration as found in Ex.A1 excluding the oral evidence of the witnesses more specially the evidence of PW1 in terms of Section 91 of the Evidence Act when consideration does not form part of the terms of the contract?

2. Is it not erroneous on the part of the first appellate court to overlook the evidence of witnesses more specially the evidence of DW2 in regard to the payment of consideration for the purchase of the property in terms of Sec.39 of the Evidence Act for full understanding of the nature and effect of the recital in regard to the payment of consideration purported to be paid by the plaintiff as found in Ex.A1.

3. Is the first appellate court invested with powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC to mould a decree by traversing the scope of the relief prayed for in the suit thus granting an alternative relief to the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.19,500/- as consideration for the sale deed to retain the sale deed Ex.A1?

4. Is Sec.92