JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit against the concurrent judgment passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit.

2. For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2007 for the following reliefs;

(a) declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13.08.2011 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is only a mortgage deed;

(b) declaration that the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2002 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st defendant is only a mortgage deed;

(c) declaration that the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2006 executed by the 2nd plaintiff is only a mortgage deed;

(d) permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

4.0. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was purchased by Poolpandian, who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant, through a registered sale deed – Ex.A1 dated 09.08.1983 and after his death in the year 1984, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same as his legal heirs. For commencement of a business, the 2nd defendant needed money. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant approached the 1st defendant, who is a money lender, for a loan of Rs.1 lakh, for which the 1st defendant asked the plaintiffs, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendants to execute “Nambikkai Kirayam” as a security for repayment of loan. The 1st plaintiff executed a gift deed dated 12.06.2001 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant, who in turn executed a sale deed dated 13.08.2001 in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also got signatures of the family members in blank pro-notes, papers and stamped papers. At that time, there was no partition effected in the family of the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant executed a released deed dated 26.03.2002 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of a portion of the suit property, in which the 2nd plaintiff built a house in that portion.

4.1. During the month of August, the plaintiffs again approached the 1st defendant for an additional loan of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiffs executed a sale deed i.e., Nambikkai Kirayams dated 26.09.2001 in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant executed two different yadast – Ex.A4 dated 19.08.2002 and Ex.A6 - 27.09.2002 respectively agreeing to reconvey the property. Due to loss in the business, the plaintiffs and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were not able to pay interest. Therefore, the 2nd plaintiff executed another sale deed, dated 28.07.2006, in respect of a portion of the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant and for that, the 1st defendant did not pay any sum. All the above sale deeds i.e. Nambikkai Kirayams were executed only as mortgage deeds and therefore, no mutation in the name of the 1st defendant had taken place. While so, the 1st defendant came to the schedule property on 13.07.2007 and began to put up construction. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for the above reliefs.

5. It is the case of the 1st defendant that out of the total extent of the suit property, the plaintiffs were sold 10 cents in favour of the 1st defendant on 26.09.2002 and another portion was sold by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant on 28.07.2006 and yet another portion was sold by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on 13.08.2001. The possession of the said property were also handed over to the 1st defendant. The above sale deeds were executed only as actual sale deeds and not as Nambikkai Kirayam. The 1st defendant did not execute yadasts as alleged by the plaintiffs. After purchase, the 1st defendant alone has been paying tax. The 1st defendant constructed 13 shops in the purch