MOOSA Vs. MOIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for a declaration that a sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property was only executed by the plaintiff as security for the amount borrowed and that it does not create any title in the defendant and that the property had always been in the possession of the plaintiff and the consequential relief of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the property on the strength of the said sale deed. The sale deed was executed by the plaintiff to the defendant on 6.1.1976. The suit for the declaration and injunction as above was filed on 28.8.1984. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the said decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court. The defendant challenges the decrees thus passed.

(2.) In the Memorandum of Second Appeal the appellant sought to raise the following substantial questions of law: -

(3.) When the matter came up for admission this Court ordered notice on the substantial question of law as formulated above. Hence, the above substantial questions of law have to be answered in this Second Appeal. Ofcourse, in terms of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can also raise any other substantial question of law that may arise in the light of the arguments addressed before it. The fact that the above questions have been framed at the time of admission is no bar for the adoption of that course.