The validity of a registered sale deed creates a presumption of ownership that cannot be easily overturned, as per established legal principles.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------

R.S.A No.884 of 2012 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, possession and injunction has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against him by the Munsiff’s Court, Kanjirappally in O.S.No.280 of 2002 as well as the Sub Court, Pala in A.S.No.82 of 2007.

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

The plaintiff’s case is that he was working in Dubai and while working, was supporting the first defendant who is the brother, and the third defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty five thousand only) on 21.07.1980 and directed the second defendant to obtain the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff, but he obtained the sale in the name of the defendants. As per sale deed No.3729/80 of S.R.O., Kanjirappally, three acres of property was purchased in the name of second defendant and three acres of property to the immediate north of the above property was purchased in the name of the first defendant and the remaining three acres in the name of the third defendant. Properties of the defendants 1 to 3 are scheduled as Item Nos.2,3 and 4 in the plaint and after execution of the sale deed the second defendant informed that he has purchased the properties in the name of the defendants for the purpose of obtaining subsidies and availing loans. It is stated that he further clarified that since the plaintiff is having six acres of land in his name it will be more beneficial to the purchase of property in the name of the defendants. The plaintiff, thus contends that he is the owner of item No.1 property and he is having uninterrupted possession over the said property from the date of execution of the sale deed. After the purchase of Item No.1 the plaintiff spent lakhs of rupees for construction of the Kayyala through the property and he planted rubber saplings in the property and constructed a store-cum-smokehouse-cum-residential building on the northern side of plaint item No.1. O.S.No.194 of 2002 was filed by the first defendant against defendants 2 and 3 for injunction and at that point of time plaintiff realised the mischief played against him and accordingly the present suit was instituted. The first defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable and that the suit was filed with an intention to harass him since he had filed O.S.No.194 of 2002. The plaintiff as well as the first defendant were not having any amount with them and they have taken loans from Thiruvalla Service Co-operative Bank in the name of their parents as well as their sister and using the said amount plaint item No.1 was purchased. Other contentions were also raised. Defendants 2 and 3 also filed separate written statement for resisting the suit. The suit was tried along with O.S.No.194 of 2002. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A25 documents were produced. Exts.B1 and B2 were produced on behalf of the defendants. Exts.C1 to C3(a) were the reports, sketch and plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. On behalf of the plaintiff PW1 and PW2 were examined and on behalf of defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came into conclusion that the plaintiff cannot succeed in view of the fact that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants. It was further found that the suit was hit by the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988.