An agreement does not create a property interest if it remains unregistered and lacks evidence of possession.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2020 passed in A.S.No.91 of 2014 of Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 in O.S.No.16 of 2012 of the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Mannarkkad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in O.S.

No.16/2012 and the respondents herein were the defendants therein. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant' according to their status in the trial court.

3. The plaint averments in brief are hereinbelow:-

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the first defendant and her husband Sreedharan. On 23rd May 1986 , the first defendant and her husband Sreedharan borrowed a sum of Rs.54,000/- from the plaintiff for the construction of a house in the plaint schedule property and executed an agreement between the parties. The plaintiff was permitted to reside therein as per the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been residing therein for the last 25 years openly, peacefully and without any intervention of the defendants. There is a stipulation in the agreement that when the plaintiff desires to change the residence from the plaint schedule property, the aforesaid amount with interest has to be returned to the plaintiff to that extent the plaint schedule property is mortgaged to the plaintiff. Sreedharan, who was one of the parties to the agreement, is no more. The defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sreedharan. The defendants threatened the forcible eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building.

4. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule property belongs to the first defendant as per assignment deed No. 5572/1979 of the Sub Registrar Office, Mannarkad. They denied the execution and content of the alleged agreement between the parties. They also denied the fact that the first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.54,000/- as alleged. The signature shown in the alleged agreement was also denied. It is stated that there was a property jointly in the name of the plaintiff and the said Sreedharan as per Document No.2619/1991 of the Sub Registrar Office, Mannarkkad having an extent of 11½ cents comprised in Sy.Nos.260/1 and 267/5 of Chethalloor Amsom and Desom. Subsequently, Sreedharan assigned his half share having an extent of 5¾ cents as per the release deed No. 4756/1998. In this plot, there is a house having 800 sq.ft, numbered as VI/542A of Thachanattukara Grama Panchayath and the plaintiff is residing there. Since the plaintiff is not having any possession over the plaint schedule property, she is not entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.

5. During the trial of the case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined on the plaintiff's side and marked Exts.A1 and A2. DW1 was examined on defendant's side and marked Exts.B1 to B4. The trial court dismissed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal before the first appellate court. The first appeal was also dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.R.Sreehari and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the courts below are failed in not considering the recital contained in Ext.A1, which would specifically indicate that the plaint schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff by the first defendant and her husband. According to the learned counsel, Ext.A1 is an irrevocable one as per the specific recital contained therein regarding the aspect that the plaint schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants. It is contended that both the trial court and the first appellate cour