Registered sale deed presumed valid; fraud allegation requires strong rebuttal evidence; boundaries prevail over survey number discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants. The first respondent/plaintiff initially filed a suit for bare injunction. Subsequently, the prayer was amended to include the prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same. The defendants 1 to 4 preferred first appeal. The first appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendants 1 to 4 have come before this court by way of second appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/ plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one A.S. Chockalingam and he sold the property to one Perumal by sale deed dated 05.07.1980. The said Perumal died leaving behind the defendants as his legal representatives. The defendants offered to sell the suit property to plaintiff and after negotiation, the price was fixed at Rs.2,34,000/-. The defendants executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff on 26.12.2005 for valuable consideration and delivered possession. The original title document was also handed over to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However, the defendants urged the plaintiff to pay more amount to meet their urgent expenses. Since the plaintiff refused to pay more amount as demanded, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and hence, the suit was initially filed seeking bare injunction.

3. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement denying execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. It was the case of the defendants that plaintiff was a money lender and the defendants borrowed money from the plaintiff and in the guise of getting mortgage deed executed, the plaintiff got a sale deed registered in his name. The defendants also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and it was their contention that no sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff and they remained in possession of the suit property. The defendants also stated that the survey number of the suit property mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was not correct and the correct survey number is New.Survey.No. 59/11G, Old.Survey.No 313/2, 3e, 4e and 5.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the prayer in the suit seeking to include a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession in IA.No.949 of 2011 and the same was allowed. Therefore, the prayer in the plaint was amended for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff also amended the description of the properties so as to include the correct survey number as mentioned by the defendants.

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and one Sivaguru, attestor to Exhibit A2, sale deed in favour of plaintiff, was examined as PW2. Three documents were marked on the side of plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On behalf of the defendants, third defendant was examined as DW1 and one Seetharaman was examined as DW2. Four documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

6. The trial court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the defendants failed to prove the plea of fraud and upheld title of the plaintiff under Exhibit A2. As a necessary consequence, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 to 4 preferred an appeal in A.S. 143 of 2019 on the file