A declaration of a document as void requires a consequential prayer to set aside the document under the Specific Relief Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TUESDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947 RSA NO. 669 OF 2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2011 IN AS NO.48 OF

2004 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2004 IN OS NO.255 OF 2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT :

JAMALUDEEN S/O.KADAR PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS, ALUMMOODU VEEDU, ARAKUNNAM, MADAVOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :

SOFIDA BEEGUM, D/O.MOHAMMED MUSTAFFA, AGED 64 YEARS, SOFIDA MANZIL, PALLICKAL DESOM & VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

PALLICKAL POST 690 563.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.01.2026, ALONG WITH RSA NO.667/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TUESDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947 RSA NO. 667 OF 2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2011 IN AS NO.49 OF

2004 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2004 IN OS NO.258 OF 2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

JAMALUDEEN S/O. KADAR PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS, ALUMMOODU VEEDU, ARAKKUNNAM, MADAVOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

1 SOFIDA BEEGUM, AGED 64 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, SOFIDA MANZIL, PALLICKAL P.O., DESOM AND VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

PALLICKAL POST 690593.

2 ABDUL AZIZ, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SPYAS UDAYA VILLA, MADAVOOR P.O. VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.690562.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.01.2026, ALONG WITH RSA NO.669/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

EASWARAN S., J.

-----------------------------

R.S.A. Nos.667 & 669 of 2012 -------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff Court, Varkala, in O.S. No.258 of 2001 and 255 of 2001 respectively, as confirmed by the Sub Court, Attingal, in A.S. Nos.49 and 48 of 2004. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.255 of 2001 and the plaintiff in O.S. No.258 of 2001. O.S. No.255 of 2001 is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. On appearance, the appellant/defendant instituted O.S. No.258 of 2001 seeking a declaration that the sale deed No.998 of 1998 is void of merit and that it was intended only to operate as a security. The allegation of the appellant was that the respondents herein are moneylenders and that he had borrowed money from them, for which a sale deed was executed as security. It was further contended that there was an oral arrangement to reconvey the property to the appellant. Since the amount was repaid and the respondents were not inclined to reconvey the property, O.S. No.258 of 2001 was instituted. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plea that the sale deed executed by the appellant herein is vitiated by misrepresentation is not proved. It was further found that the plea of the appellant herein that the respondents are moneylenders is also not proved beyond doubt. Accordingly, O.S. No.258 of 2001 was dismissed, and O.S. No.255 of 2001 was decreed, and the appellant/defendant was restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or annexing any portion from the plaint schedule or committing any waste or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint sche