A sale deed is valid unless proven otherwise, and accurate description of property is essential for determining legal boundaries.

JUDGMENT

The defendants 2, 4 & 9 in O.S.No.401/2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order of remand passed in A.S. 169/06 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District Court, Kollam. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary separating plaint 'A' schedule property and plaint 'B' & 'C' schedule properties and for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property and demolition of two unauthorised sheds in plaint A schedule property.

2. The trial court held that plaint A schedule description is not in terms of the title deed, that the demarcating boundary between the plaint A schedule property and B&C schedule properties cannot be identified correctly and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the declaration as prayed for. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court, in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, set aside the decree and judgment of the court below and allowed the appeal and F.A.O.No.32/2008 2 remanded the case directing the court below to obtain fresh plan and report with regard to the plaint schedule properties and fix the boundaries as sought in the plaint after giving opportunities to parties to let in evidence in that respect. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court that Ext.A1 sale deed dated 17.6.1993 is not a sham document. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) will stand set aside. The lower appellate court also held that it will be open to the appellant herein to apply for formal amendment of plaint suing for declaration of title if he so chooses. Parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff is the husband of the 10th defendant. The 9th defendant is the wife of 2nd defendant. All other parties to the suit namely defendants 1 to 8 and 10 are brothers and sisters. The plaintiff claimed title to plaint A schedule property having been obtained by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 17.6.1993. Plaint A schedule property is 10 cents in extent. Ext.A1 sale deed was executed by the 6th defendant and his mother. Defendants 1 to 8 and 10 are the co-owners of the property. Plaint B & C schedule properties are adjacent properties in which the defendants alone have right and and interest F.A.O.No.32/2008 3 and the plaintiff does not raise any claim over the said properties. The plaintiff sought relief of fixation of boundary and putting up of boundary separating plaint A schedule 10 cents from plaint B & C schedule properties. Plaint A schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from his mother-in-law and 6th defendant. There was a residential building in plaint A schedule property. At the time of execution of Ext.A1 sale deed the mother-in-law was residing there along with other defendants and defendants 2 and 9. After the death of the mother-in-law in 1994, defendants 2 & 9 continued to reside in the building in plaint A schedule property. According to the plaintiff they are residing in the building under permission given by the plaintiff and they have no title or right to continue to occupy the residence. Plaintiff also sought eviction of defendants 2 & 9 from the residential building in the plaint A schedule property.

4. The suit was contested only by the defendants 2, 4 & 9. They filed joined written statement denying the averments in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. According to the contesting defendants, the plaintiff do not have any title or possession in plaint A schedule property as Ext.A1 was not executed a sale deed, but is a F.A.O.No.32/2008 4 security at the time when the 6th defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the plaintiff. It is contended that deed is a sham document as it was intended only as a security and never intended to operate as a sale deed conveying any title or possession to the plaintiff.

5. It is also contended that occupation of defendants 2 and 9 of the building in plaint B schedule and the cons