Janak De Silva, J.

The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (Plaintiff) instituted this action against the Defendants-Respondents-Appellants (Defendants) praying for a declaration that the 1^st Defendant is holding the property described in the Second Schedule to the plaint, which was transferred by Deed No. 1455, in trust for the Plaintiff, for a declaration that the 1^st Defendant did not have and do not have any beneficial interest in the property, to set aside Deed No. 1455 on the principle of laesio enormis, for a direction to the 1^st Defendant to retransfer the property to the Plaintiff and in the alternative for a direction to the Registrar of Court to effect a retransfer to the Plaintiff and for costs of the action.

The Plaintiff claims that the transfer of land to the 1^st Defendant was executed merely as security for a loan, while the Defendants maintain that it was an outright sale for valuable consideration.

The property described in the First Schedule to the plaint was originally held by the Plaintiff and her husband, Wilson Perera, by virtue of Deed No. 331. At one stage Wilson Perera required funds and, by Deed No. 118, the land was conveyed as security to Somalatha Perera for a loan of Rs.150,000/=. Upon repayment, that loan was discharged and the land reconveyed to Wilson Perera and the Plaintiff.

Subsequently needing further funds, the Plaintiff executed Deed No. 16824 in favour of Gnanaratna Ramanayake as a security and obtained Rs.200,000/=. When Ramanayake demanded repayment, the Plaintiff procured Rs. 175,000/= from Wannipulli Arachchige Swarnalatha and settled Ramanayaka’s debt.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff executed Deed No. 2677 in favour of Swarnalatha as security for the said loan. Following partial repayment, Swarnalatha partitioned the property described in the First Schedule, into three lots: Lot A1, Lot A2, and Lot A3 (the roadway) and reconveyed Lot A1, to the Plaintiff by Deed No. 2839 dated 20.07.1995.

Subsequently, further sums fell due and Swarnalatha demanded payment of the outstanding balance. The Plaintiff, being unable to raise the required funds, requested Swarnalatha to execute a transfer in favour of the 1^st Defendant. Accordingly, Swarnalatha executed Deed No. 1455, transferring Lot A2,the portion described in the Second Schedule to the plaint to the 1^st Defendant, who advanced a sum of Rs.150,000/=.

The Plaintiff’s case is that this transfer was executed only as security for the loan and that the Defendants agreed to reconvey the property upon repayment. When the Respondent sought to repay the loan, the Defendants purportedly demanded a higher sum and refused reconveyance. On learning that the Defendants intended to sell or otherwise dispose of the property, the Plaintiff lodged a caveat in the Land Registry.

Before the District Court and the High Court, the Plaintiff contended that the earlier transfers, beginning with Deed No. 16824 executed in favour of Ramanayaka, had given rise to a trust in her favour. She maintained that both Ramanayaka and, subsequently, Swarnalatha had held the property under the same trust. She contended that the present transaction with the 1^st Defendant, effected by Deed No. 1455, was of a similar nature and likewise intended to operate as a security, thereby giving rise to a constructive trust in her favour.

The Plaintiff relied principally on oral evidence of an understanding that the transfers were security arrangements and on certain attendant circumstances to show that the beneficial interest never passed. The Defendants, however, denied any promise as such and asserted that the transfer under Deed No. 1455 was an outright purchase for valuable consideration.

The 1^st Defendant was found to hold all original title deeds, to have registered her name in the assessment records and to have paid Municipal assessment charges since 1999. Evidence before Court included admissions that Swarnalatha had been in possession when she received title from Ramanayaka and that title searche