The plaintiff failed to substantiate claims of property ownership and recovery of funds, with findings of the trial court affirming limitations statutes hindered claims.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title over immovable properties and for recovery of money is the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed with the following reliefs:

“a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the plaint schedule properties.

b) to permit the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of his title from the defendants and, if they refuse to abide by the decree and vacate the plaint schedule properties, to allow the plaintiff to recover the same through the process of court.

c) to pass a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from entering into the plaint schedule properties and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff.

d) if prayers (a) to (c) are found to be not allowable, to direct the defendants to pay Rs.33,50,000/- + Rs.2,20,63,435/-, totalling Rs.2,54,13,435/-.”

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’, as the other defendants have only a limited role in the case) were childhood friends. The plaintiff went abroad and started working in a mobile shop in Dubai. Initially, he worked in a mobile shop by the name Al Bash Communications. Later, he started his own mobile shop under the name Plus Point Phone Trading Company.

4. According to the plaintiff, he sent an amount of Rs.33,50,000/- to the defendant for purchasing immovable properties in his name. However, the defendant purchased the properties in his own name as well as in the names of his relatives. When the plaintiff realised this, the defendant explained that if the properties were purchased in the plaintiff’s name, there would be enquiries regarding the source of the large amount utilised for the purchase. The plaintiff therefore alleges that the defendant is holding the properties in trust as a trustee for the plaintiff. The first three reliefs in the plaint were sought on the basis of the above allegations. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.33,50,000/- together with interest.

5. The plaintiff further alleged that, while conducting Plus Point Phone Trading Company in Dubai, he had sent various consignments of mobile phones, electronic goods, and mobile accessories to the defendant. These consignments were allegedly sent for sale through mobile shops functioning at Penta Menaka, Ernakulam, and M/s. Pearl Trading Company, Thavanoor. According to the plaintiff, the capital investment for both these establishments was made by him. Earlier also, the plaintiff had sent similar consignments to M/s. Pearl Trading Company while he was working at Al Bash Communications. The plaintiff further alleged that, whenever he demanded accounts, the defendant used to state that the business was running at a loss. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is therefore liable to repay Rs.2,20,63,435/-, being the value of the consignments. Accordingly, recovery of the said amount was also sought.

6. The defendant denied the entire allegations and contended that the actual transaction between the parties was one of investments made by the plaintiff in the business conducted by the defendant. According to the defendant, he had been conducting several businesses for many years and th