THAMBIKUNJU ELYAS Vs. ABDUL RAZAK SHUKOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.5.1997 in l.A.No. 988/96 and I.A.No. 2050/96 in O.S. No. 148/88 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 148/ 88. The plaint 'B' Schedule property forms part of 'A'schedule property. It is having an extent of 40 cents. The plaintiff is the owner of the same.

(2.) The marriage of the plaintiff's daughter was fixed to be conducted on 25,10,1987. Since he was short of funds, the plaintiff approached the defendant for a loan of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid back within three months. The defendant demanded Rs, 20,000/- by way of interest for the three months. In the circumstances, the plaintiff had to agree for the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff received of Rs. 30,000/- on 20.10.1987. The defendant was not agreeable for the execution of hypothecation deed or promissory note as security. He wanted a sale deed in respect of 'B' schedule property. Accordingly, Ext. Al sale deed was executed on 20.10.1987 in favour of the defendant. On the same day, the defendant executed an agreement, Ext. A2, by which he agreed to reconvey the property to the plaintiff on the repayment of the loan with interest. The plaintiff approached the defendant with the amount, but the defendant refused to reconvey the property. Therefore, the suit was filed for a declaration that Ext. Al sale deed was only a security bond and to set aside the same by releasing the encumbrance on deposit of the loan amount and interest.

(3.) Defendant contested. He said it was only an outright sale. Further during the pendency of the suit, he trespassed into 'B' Schedule property and got it into his possession. The trial court, after considering all the issues, declared that Ext. Al sale deed was a security bond. It granted a decree for recovery of possession and also held that the encumbrance will be deemed to be relinquished, if an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum was paid within four months. The defendant was directed to surrender the property immediately after the amount was deposited. The decree further stated that if the amount was not deposited as directed, the terms in the decree in favour of the plaintiff will become ineffective.