SAROJINI Vs. RAMANUNNI MOOSATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in OS 41/2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chittur is the appellant. Plaintiff is the respondent. Respondent filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of possession and for injunction. Plaint schedule property admittedly originally belonged to the appellant. Respondent is contending that under Ext. A1 sale deed dated 06/11/2001 appellant sold the property to the respondent and hence he has title to the property. It was contended that though appellant promised to surrender possession of the plaint schedule property pursuant to the execution of Ext. A1 sale deed within two days from the date of its execution, she did not do so. Respondent therefore sought a decree for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Contending that appellant may trespass into the plaint schedule property later after getting recovery possession, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought for. Appellant in the written statement admitted execution of Ext. A1 sale deed. But it was contended that it was executed as a security and was never intended to be an outright sale. It was contended that Rs.15,000/- was obtained on loan from the respondent and Ext. A1 was executed as security for the loan on the understanding that when appellant repay the loan amount, respondent would reconvey the plaint schedule property and the sale deed was never intended to be acted upon and therefore respondent has not derived any title to the plaint schedule property under Ext. A1 and is not entitled to the decree sought for. It was also contended that respondent is not entitled to the decree for injunction.

(2.) Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues. On the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the respondent and DW 1 on the side of the appellant and Exts. C1 and C1(a), learned Munsiff found that respondent has title to the plaint schedule property under Ext. A1 and Ext. A1 was not executed as security as claimed by appellant but was an outright sale deed. A decree for recovery possession was granted. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was granted to take effect after the respondent takes possession of the property pursuant to the decree. Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before the District Court, Palakkad in AS 278/2005. Learned Additional District Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned Munsiff dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard.