JUDGMENT

The 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.373/2000, a suit before the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, for declaration that a sale deed executed by the plaintiff is sham and was only intended to operate as a security deed, along with a consequential prayer for recovery of possession, has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings against her.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property through an assignment deed in the year 1997. The 1^st defendant was conducting a money lending business in the name ‘Management Consultants’ and the 2^nd defendant was the Manager under the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant used to issue receipts on behalf of the 1st defendant and that the husband of the plaintiff approached the 1^st defendant and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of granting the said loan, the 1^st defendant insisted that a mortgage deed be executed with respect of the property of the plaintiff in the name of the 1st defendant or in the name of the persons, as suggested by him. He assured that once the mortgage debt was cleared off, a surrender deed would be executed. Ac