The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for rectification of a sale deed is maintainable and not barred by limitation. The court also clarified the inadmissibility of the appellant's claim of adverse possession.

1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent.

2. It is seen that the suit was filed by the respondent herein in O.S.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif of Kotagiri seeking judgment and decree against the appellant/defendant for rectification of a sale deed No.695/86, dated 23.07.1986 to be executed by the defendant by subsisting the S.No.447/15 in the place of S.No.447/6A in the schedule of property and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant and his men or agent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent/ plaintiff in the suit property and also for the cost of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 30.11.2007.

3. Aggrieved by which the appeal in A.S.No.21/08 was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff herein. Learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff, against which the second appeal has been preferred.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for admitting the second appeal in the grounds of appeal:

"1. Is not the suit filed admittedly after 17 years barred by limitation?

2. Whether suit for plain injunction and rectification maintainable in law?

3. Has not the defendant/Appellant perfected title by adverse possession?

4. In the absence of a prayer for mandatory injunction is the suit maintainable in law?

5. Whether the suit for rectification of sale deed maintainable in law, in the absence of any consideration for the rectification sought for?"

5. Substantial questions of law 1 and 2:-In the written statement filed by the defendant in paragraph no.3, the appellant/defendant has admitted the execution of the sale deed marked as Ex.P.A1 dated 23.07.1986 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. According to him, the sale deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as a collateral security for the amount borrowed by him and not as sale deed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant/defendant after having executed the sale deed Ex.A1 before the Sub-Registrar and handed over the possession of the property to the respondent/ plaintiff, has come forward with the untennable defence which is not legally sustainable.

7. In the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff has contented that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property, pursuant to the sale deed, however, he came to know, about the wrong mentioning of the sub-division number of the land in sale the deed only in the first week of January 2003 and demanded the appellant/defendant to execute a rectification deed. However, the appellant/defendant failed to execute the rectification deed, but attempted to trespass into the property. Hence the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the aforesaid relief.

8. The appellant/defendant has admitted the execution of the sale deed, Ex.P.A1 by him. Had the sale deed been obtained under threat and coercion or undue influence against the will of the appellant/defendant, he could have filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed on the said ground. But no such suit was filed by the appellant/defendant against the respondent/plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed. As per the sale deed the respondent/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the sale deed dated 23.07.1986. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the appellant/defendant is estopped from raising a defence that he had executed the sale deed only as a collateral security for an amount borrowed from the respondent/plaintiff, against the averments made in the sale deed.

9. As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

"The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard bei