NANI Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.349 of 2009 before the Court of Munsiff, Adoor and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Substantive prayer in the suit is for a declaration that Exts.A2 and A8 sale deeds are null and void and therefore to cancel the same. It is specifically contended in the plaint that the said deeds are sham documents, under which no interest in the property had been transferred in favour of the defendants.

(2.) The trial court decreed the suit granting the reliefs sought for. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiffs are in appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.

(3.) Short facts, material for determination of the issues, are as follows: Plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Ayyappan, who was the grant parent of plaintiffs 2 and On the death of Ayyappan, his son Kunjukunju and daughters inherited the property. Later, as per Ext.A1 document of the year 1979, sisters of Kunjukunju settled their shares in the property in favour of Kunjukunju. Kunjukunju is the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and husband of the 1st plaintiff. He became the absolute owner of the property. After his death on 17/12/2001, the property devolved on the plaintiffs. 1st defendant is a local money lender, who had advanced Rs. 30, 000.00 to the plaintiffs. For securing the money advanced, he insisted on execution of Ext.A2 sale deed in favour of himself and the 2nd defendant. Plaintiffs would contend that there was no transfer of property and the deed was executed only with an intention to ensure repayment of the loan amount with interest. It is the case in the plaint that Rs. 30, 000.00 was taken as loan from the 1st defendant with a stipulation to pay 2% interest per month because of the pressing situation prevailed in the family of the plaintiffs. 2nd plaintiff had repaid the entire outstanding debt with interest and demanded the 1st defendant to return the property. Instead of re-conveying the property to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 alienated the property to the name of 3rd defendant as per Ext.A8 in the year 2009. Plaintiffs house is situated on the extreme north of the entire property. Excluding the house site, the remaining property was included in Ext.A2, which was executed only as security for the amount borrowed. Plaintiffs had no intention to sell the property and defendants 1 and 2 had assured them that they would not claim any title over the same. Since the defendants failed to fulfill their obligation, the suit was filed.