GEORGE Vs. ANNAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.F.A. No. 329 of 2005 arises from O.S. No. 563 of 1999 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was one for declaration that Ext A1 sale deed is sham and void. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the vendors"). Defendant No. 1 who is the vendee under Ext.A1 (hereinafter referred to as "the purchaser") and Defendant No. 2 who is a subsequent assignee under Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the assignee") are in appeal.

(2.) R.F.A. No. 138 of 2006 originally filed as A.S. No. 365 of 2005 before the District Court, Ernakulam arises from O.S. No. 85 of 2003 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was one for fixation of boundary and injunction filed by the purchaser and the assignee as plaintiffs. The dismissal of the suit is under challenge in the appeal.

(3.) The property in question having an extent of 53 cents is a portion of larger extent of 65.50 cents which belonged to late Jacob, the predecessor-in-interest of the vendors as per Ext B2 sale deed of the year 1964. It is the case of the vendors that they availed a loan of Rs. 50,000.00 from the purchaser and as insisted by him, Ext A1, a document styled as a sale deed, was executed by the vendors in favour of the purchaser. Exhibit A1 was executed as required by the purchaser. The purchaser had agreed that a re-conveyance deed would be executed on repayment of the loan amount. It is the case of the vendors that Ext A1 was never intended to take effect and was a document executed merely for the sake of it. The vendors seek for a declaration that Ext A1 is sham and void. The purchaser and assignee denied the contention that Ext A1 is a sham document. It was contended that out of the larger extent of 65.50 cents that belonged to the vendors, the purchaser purchased 53 cents excluding the residential house as per Ext A1 sale deed for sufficient consideration. The contention of the vendors that Ext.A1 was not intended to take effect and that the transaction between the parties was in fact a loan arrangement, was denied. A portion of the 53 cents covered under Ext A1 was conveyed by the purchaser to the assignee as per Ext B6 sale deed. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.