The bar under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the plaintiffs from adducing oral evidence to contradict the contents of the registered sale deed, and the suit is barred by limitation.

The second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit praying for setting aside Sale Deed No.431/2010 of SRO, Kanjirappally, having lost their cause before the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The parties are referred to by their status in the suit.

2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the husband of the 1st plaintiff, the late Satheesh. According to the plaintiffs, due to financial difficulties, Satheesh had to execute a sale deed as security for amounts borrowed from the 1st defendant. It is stated that even though a document was executed, the possession remained with deceased Satheesh and the plaintiffs, and the 1st defendant did not get possession of the property. It is alleged that Satheesh committed suicide owing to a threat from the 1st defendant on account of not being put in possession, and thereafter the 1st defendant transferred the property to defendants 2 & 3. It is alleged in the plaint that the sale deed was executed by playing fraud upon Satheesh and the sale is liable to be set aside. It would appear from the averments in the plaint and the evidence of PW1 that the possession had been taken by the defendants. The plaint was initially filed with a prayer for a declaration that the sale deed was void but was later amended to seek a decree to set aside the sale deed. There is no prayer for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the sale deed was executed for valuable consideration, that the 1st defendant was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property after the sale, that the document was executed without any undue influence or coercion, and that after the purchase of the property from deceased Satheesh, the 1st defendant had sold the property to defendants 2 & 3 and the defendants 2 & 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 2nd and 3rd defendants also filed written statements stating that they had purchased the property under Sale Deed No.3440/2010 for valuable consideration and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.X1 to X6 were marked as third-party Exhibits.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the execution of the document is admitted and there is nothing in the document to show that it was executed as a security. The court took note of the fact that the document was executed after receiving consideration, that the above aspect is admitted by PW1 who stated that she was with her husband at the time of execution of the document and receipt of consideration, that the averments in the plaint do not detail any fraud played while executing Ext.A1, that the plaintiffs' case is that there was an understanding between late Satheesh and the 1st defendant that the property would be reconveyed on the payment of the loan amount with interest, that deceased Satheesh had approached the 1st defendant on 09.08.2010 demanding re-conveyance of the property, that Ext.A1 document would only show that it is an outright sale, that there was a bar under the Evidence Act to give oral evidence against the contents of the registered document, that mutation had been effected in the name of the 1st defendant and thereafter in the names of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, that the cause of action as per the plaint arose on 21.09.2010 but the suit was filed only on 06.07.2015, and that the amended prayer for setting aside the document executed is also not maintainable in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act . The court also took note of the fact that the prayer for setting aside Ext.A1 was incorporated by way of amendment only in the year 2017.

6. The First Appellate Court reconsidered the evidence on record and found that the execution of the sale deed is admitted by the plaintiffs and testim