Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
THULASEEDHARAN NAIR – Respondent
RSA NO. 496 OF 2014 | AS NO.128 OF 2004 | OS NO.328 OF 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AKHIL SURESH
For the Respondents: SRI.M.DINESH, SRI.C.S.SATHEESH (PALLICKAL)
Registered sale deed presumed valid; sham claim barred by limitation if not filed timely.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The suit sought specific performance and declaration that the sale deed dated 16.10.1997 was sham, not intended to transfer title, with property given as security for a loan of Rs.40,000/-. Courts below dismissed the suit and decreed the counterclaim for title and possession. The High Court found no substantial question of law, suit barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and insufficient evidence to rebut presumption of registered document under law. Second Paragraph: Issues included whether the sale deed was sham with oral reconveyance agreement and effect of inconsistent pleas in connected suits. Ratio: Registered documents carry rebuttable presumption of validity; plaintiff failed to rebut it and suit filed beyond limitation. Third Paragraph: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for specific performance alleging sham sale deed as security. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no substantial question of law in appeal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. suit barred by limitation; presumption not rebutted. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and declaration that Sale Deed No.3722/1997 dated 16.10.1997 is a sham document which was not intended to take effect has come up in this appeal aggrieved by concurrent findings against him.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The appellant/plaintiff contended that the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the defendant as financial assistance. The property in question was given as a security for the aforesaid purpose. The document, though executed on 16.10.1997, was never intended to convey any right, title and interest to the defendant. The plaint schedule property will fetch Rs.30,000/- per cent and it is unbelievable that 20 cents of the property was sold for Rs.40,000/-. It was further contended that the plaintiff and the defendant had an oral agreement to reconvey the property. Since the defendant failed to reconvey the property, hence the suit. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that, after execution of a valid sale deed, the plaintiff cannot resile back and contend that it is only a sham document. The defendant further instituted a counter claim for declaring the title and possession and also for fixation of boundary in terms of the sale deed. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.128/2004 before the Sub Court, Attingal, which was dismissed by judgment dated 29.11.2012 and hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard, Adv.Akhil Suresh - learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.M.Dinesh - learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. On a consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the present appeal.
5. Admittedly, the document in question is executed on 16.10.1997 and that the suit is filed only in the year 2002. Therefore, the present suit is clearly hit byArticle 58of theLimitation Act, 1963. That apart, the contention of the appellant is that in a connected suit, i.e.O.S.No.251/2003, instituted by the defendant herein for recovery of money, there is a clear admission regarding the financial transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, when a written statement was filed in the present suit, there was a complete denial regarding the financial transaction. This inconsistent plea was not taken note by the courts below. This court sees no reason to accept the aforesaid argument.
6. In Prem Singh & Ors v. Birbal & Ors [(2006) 5 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a registered document carries a presumptive value which is of course, rebuttable. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid presumption. That apart, since the plaintiff very well knew the contents of Ext.A1 document, it was incumbent upon him to have filed the suit within the period of limitation. Having not done so, the claim must necessarily fail.
In the light of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
