The registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish it as a sham, which they failed to do.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2014 in A.S. No. 15 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore, Ranipet, in reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.78 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, dated 29.10.2012.

2. Heard Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the material available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

4. The appellants in this case are the defendants 1 and 2 in Suit O.S. No. 78 of 2004, filed before the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, by the 2-24 respondent/plaintiff. The suit was filed seeking relief for the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property. After contesting the case, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 15 of 2013, before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Ranipet. The learned first appellate judge allowed the appeal. Challenging the said findings, the defendants have now preferred this second appeal.

5. Brief Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to the defendants, who are husband and wife, and was acquired by them through three different sale deeds. Due to urgent family expenses, they sold the suit property to the plaintiff for valid consideration, and the sale deed was duly registered in her favour on 20.07.2000. Subsequently, the name transfer was effected in the municipal records, and the plaintiff paid property tax as the absolute owner of the suit property.

6. After executing the sale deed, the defendants agreed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property but failed to do so. However, since the first defendant is the plaintiff’s sister, she did not take immediate steps to evict them. Later, the defendants expressed their intention to repurchase the property and entered into a sale agreement on 05-08-2001. As per the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to sell the property for Rs.3,20,000/- and received an advance of Rs.50,000. The sale was to be completed on or before 05-11-2001. However, the defendants failed to fulfill their part of the agreement.

7. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22-07-2002, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The first defendant evaded the notice, while the second defendant received but did not reply or comply with the terms. Furthermore, the defendants neither handed over possession of the suit property as per the terms of the sale deed nor showed any inclination to complete the purchase as per the sale agreement dated 05-08-2001. The plaintiff issued another notice on 22-03-2004, demanding possession of the property. The second defendant received the notice but did not respond or surrender possession. Hence, the suit was filed.

8. In their written statement, the defendants admitted their relationship with the plaintiff but denied all other allegations. They contended that the second defendant and the plaintiff’s husband were involved in an unregistered chit fund and had accumulated debts. To safeguard the property from being sold to settle the debts, they executed a nominal sale deed, which was never intended to be acted upon. They further claimed that, on the same day, another document was executed on 20.07.2000, wherein the plaintiff agreed to reconvey the property.

9. The defendants asserted that the market value of the property was Rs.6,00,000/- but the alleged sale deed mentioned only Rs.1,25,000/-. However, in the sale agreement, the property value was stated as Rs.3,20,000/- and an advance payment of Rs.50,000/- was made, thereby confirming the defendants’ continued possession of the property. According to them, the plaintiff was entitled only to claim the balance amount and not to seek recovery of possession. They also a