Madras High Court
R.Jothivel vs R.Palanisamy on 20 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1978
A.S(MD)No.48 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.03.2025
Pronounced on : 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
A.S(MD)No.48 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3258 of 2023
R.Jothivel ... Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
R.Palanisamy ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER :- This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.21
of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur and allow the present
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suresh
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
A.S(MD)No.48 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2022
passed in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,
Karur.
2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Karur. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit.
The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the
respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for recovery of
possession.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank
before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts are as below:
(a) The case of the plaintiff (Respondent herein):- The suit property
originally belonged to one R.Krishasamy Pillai through Court auction sale in
E.P.No.10358 of 1957 in O.S.No.429 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Karur, as sale was confirmed on 18.12.1957. He sold the suit property to
one Ramasamy Gounder by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 24.06.1958.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
Thereafter, Ramasamy Gounder died, leaving behind his wife Pappayee and his
sons R.Jothivel and R.Krishnan and daughters Dhananalakshmi @ Lakshmi and
Kokilam as legal heirs. One of his sons R.Krishan died intestate, leaving behind
his wife, K.Rajalakshmi, son K.Chandraseakran and his mother, Pappayee.
The mother Pappayee, executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his
son Jothivel regarding her lawful share. Similarly, the daughters of Ramasamy
Gounder namely Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi & Kokilam and deceased R.Krishan’s
wife Rajalakshmi and her son Chandrasekaran jointly executed release deed, dated
22.01.2014 in favour of R.Jothivel for valuable consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-.
So, the said Jothivel, who is the defendant herein, became the absolute owner of
the suit property. The defendant Jothivel for himself and as guardian of his minor
daughters Sukanya and Swetha sold the suit property to the plaintiff by means of
registered sale deed, dated 02.04.2014 for consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.
From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of
the suit property. Thereafter, the defendant came to the plaintiff and demanded
additional consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the plaintiff’s refusal, the defendant
made a threat and attempted to trespass into possession. So, the plaintiff filed suit
in O.S.No.31 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Karur, for permanent
injunction and that suit was dismissed as the plaintiff had not proved his
possession. In such circumstances, during pongal holidays between 14.01.2019 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
17.01.2019, when the plaintiff was away from Karur, taking advantage of the
dismissal suit and with the help of henchmen, the defendant trespassed into the
suit property and unlawfully possessed of suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff
has laid the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive
owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession.
(b) The case of the defendant (appellant herein):-
The defendant approached the plaintiff, who is doing money lending
business, and borrowed loan. At the time, the plaintiff and his allies compelled
the defendant and got the deed, styled as sale deed registered in the name of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he would transfer the property
upon the settlement of loan. The alleged sale deed, dated 02.04.2014, was
obtained by the plaintiff fraudulently, by misrepresentation and undue influence.
So, the sale deed is not valid in law. Since the plaintiff demanded exorbitant
interest and illegally attempted to vacate the defendant from suit property, the
defendant lodged a police complaint on 30.12.2014. The averments that the
defendant trespassed into the property and got unlawful possession of the property
are denied. The daughters of the defendant, Suganya and Swetha, who are alleged
to have executed the sale deed, have not been added as parties to the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
5. In the reply statement, the plaintiff stated that the defendant traced title by
means of registered settlement deed, dated 22.03.2010 and registered release deed,
dated 22.01.2014, and accordingly sold the suit property to the plaintiff on
02.04.2014. So, the daughters do not have a share in the suit property.
The defendant showed his daughters in the sale deed only as eo nomine parties, so
they need not be added as parties.
6. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both
parties.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration of the title and consequent recovery of
possession?
(2) What other relief?
Additional Issues:
(1) Whether the sale deed dated 02.04.2014
was obtained fraudulently, by misrepresentation and
undue influence as alleged by the defendant?
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
proper and necessary parties?
(3) Whether the relief claimed in the suit is
barred by limitation?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
7. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and
marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and
examined one of the attestors, Siva as D.W.2 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3.
8. On appreciation of evidence and the arguments made by either parties,
the trial Court has concluded that the defendant has not proved that he executed
the sale deed only for loan and hence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by
its judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2022.
9. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are under challenge in this
appeal suit.
10. The learned counsel for both parties have argued at length by relying on
respective rulings. On hearing both sides and on perusing the material records
along with grounds of appeal, both sides admitted that the suit property originally
belonged to one R.Krishasamy Pillai, who purchased through Court auction sale in
E.P.No.10358 of 1957 in O.S.No.429 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Karur on 18.12.1957. The appellant/defendant’s father, Ramasamy
Gounder, purchased the suit property from the said Krishnasamy Pillai through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
Ex.A.1 - Registered Sale Deed, dated 24.06.1958. Thereafter, Ramasamy
Gounder died, leaving behind his wife Pappayee and his sons R.Jothivel, the
defendant herein and R.Krishnan and daughters Dhananalakshmi @ Lakshmi and
Kokilam as legal heirs. One of the sons R.Krishan died intestate, leaving behind
his wife, K.Rajalakshmi, son K.Chandraseakran and his mother, Pappayee.
Then the appellant/defendant’s mother Pappayee, executed Ex.A.2 - Settlement
Deed, dated 22.03.2010 and other legal heirs executed Ex.A.3 - Release Deed,
dated 22.01.2014, in favour of the appellant/defendant. Thus, the
appellant/defendant became the absolute owner of the property.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property from the
defendant through Ex.A.4 - Registered Sale Deed, dated 02.04.2014, whereas it is
the case of the defendant that he executed Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed only as security for
the loan obtained by him from the plaintiff and through the said Sale Deed -
Ex.A.4, title and possession were not conveyed to the plaintiff.. The trial Court
held that the defendant has not established that he had executed Ex.A.4 - Sale
Deed for security for the loan. The defendant approached this Court on appeal
mainly agitating the following point and the same has to be decided in this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
12. The point for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the defendant has established that
Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed, dated 02.04.2014, was nominal
and executed only for collateral security for the
loan obtained from the plaintiff?
13. Point:
The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has mainly argued that the
defendant never executed the deed of sale on 02.04.2014 and he never handed
over possession. The plaintiff admitted that the defendant’s sister executed a
release deed on 22.01.2014, so the title and possession of the defendant are
admitted by the plaintiff prior to the alleged sale deed, dated 02.04.2014.
The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Karur. against the defendant for permanent injunction from interfering with
his possession over the suit property and made pleadings that the defendant
approached the plaintiff and demanded an additional sale price of Rs.2 lakhs and
threatened to disturb his possession. After full fledged trial, the learned District
Munsif, Karur, held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and
dismissed that suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 on 19.11.2018. The plaintiff has not
filed any appeal against the dismissal of his earlier suit, so the finding that the
plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property reached finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
14. The learned counsel has made further arguments that after dismissal of
the suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 on 19.11.2018, the plaintiff filed the present suit on
27.02.2019 for declaration and recovery of possession by false pleading with an
imaginary cause of action that the plaintiff was dispossessed during pongal
holidays between 14.01.2019 to 17.01.2019. In previous case, it was decided on
19.11.2018 that the plaintiff did not possess of suit property, if so, how he could
be dispossessed of the suit property, so the plaintiff made false averments. It is the
specific stand of the defendant that he never executed the sale deed, dated
02.04.2014 and the same was executed only for security for loan of Rs.1,00,000/-
obtained from the plaintiff. When the defendant asked about the contents of deed,
as it was sale deed, the plaintiff replied that he would convey the same at the time
of settlement of loan. So, the alleged sale deed was never intended to convey title
and possession over the suit property. No prudent man would get the sale deed
executed without possession. Since the plaintiff demanded exorbitant interest, the
defendant lodged a police complaint on 30.12.2014 and in order to escape from
the criminal liability, the plaintiff filed the earlier suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 with
false cause of action. In fact, the plaintiff has not alleged about the earliest cause
of action that happened 30.12.2014. The plaintiff as PW1 has admitted in his
evidence about the police enquiry. Mere holding of the defendant’s original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
documents by the plaintiff will not prove title and possession of the plaintiff over
the suit property.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the alleged sale
was never acted upon either by conveying title and possession to the plaintiff till
date, and it was executed only as a security for loan transaction between the
plaintiff and the defendant. It is essential on the part of the plaintiff to prove his
title by adducing cogent and positive evidence in order to establish his own title,
and the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the loopholes in the defendant’s case.
But, the trial Court wrongly placed the burden on the defendant to disprove the
case of the plaintiff without properly evaluating the evidence of D.W.2.
Therefore, the finding of the trial Court has to be set aside and the appeal may be
allowed. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 2014 (4) CTC 471 (SC) [Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd. and Others], 2023 Supreme (SC) 20 [Manik Majumder
and Others vs. Dipak Kumar Saha (Dead) through Lrs. & Others] and 2023
(0) Sup (SC) 1165 [P.Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K.Patkar].
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has
vehemently contended that the defendant did not mention about the particulars of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
loan amount and when he obtained the loan. The defendant has not produced any
documents to show the same. Without pleading, the defendant deposed in his
evidence as if he obtained Rs.1,00,000/-, which is not acceptable in law.
Moreover, he has not pleaded anything as to the loan amount, repayment etc.,
There is no reason put forth by the defendant why he executed a sale deed for
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) while he availed only meager loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). There is no valid reason why he gave the
parental deeds to the plaintiff. Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed is a registered document, if so,
there is a statutory presumption available U/s.114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Even though the plaintiff has filed the earlier suit based on Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed,
the defendant has not challenged the sale deed at the time of that suit or after the
dismissal of that suit.
17. He further argued that the defendant’s contention that due to his
financial inability he availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- is unbelievable, because prior
to sale deed, he redeemed his mortgage loan from one Chellamuthu through the
Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12. The defendant also obtained release deed from her sisters
by paying Rs.3,75,000/- on 02.01.2014, so he was not in financial crisis, but the
said contention strengthens the case of plaintiff that the defendant sold the suit
property for Rs.10,00,000/- for settling those loans as per contents of the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
deed. It is the further argument that if really the defendant obtained Rs.1,00,000/-,
there is no reason for him to execute the sale deed for Rs.10,00,000/-, and also
there is no necessity to hand over the previous original title deeds of the suit
property to the plaintiff.
18. He further argued that the defendant as D.W.1, admitted in his evidence
that the recitals of Ex.A.4 as sale deed even before the Sub Registrar at the time of
registration. While being so, the defendant has not taken steps to challenge the
sale deed. The defendant's side witness D.W.2 gave evidence in support of the
plaintiff's case through Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14, which are marked through D.W.2.
As per defendant's version, the defendant is the absolute owner by way of
settlement deed executed by his mother and release deed by his sisters. The suit
property is not ancestral property. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that
his daughters got share in the suit property is a false one, moreover, he executed
for himself and also on behalf of his daughters. So,the plaintiff proved that he is
the title holder of the suit property. The trial Court correctly appreciated the
evidence of both sides and correctly shifted the onus of proof on the defendant,
who contended that the sale deed was executed for security and came to the
conclusion that the defendant failed to establish his case. The trial Court further
held that after Ex.A.4, the name of the plaintiff has been transferred regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
property tax, electricity service, which are unchallenged and therefore, the trial
Court's finding is correct. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
19. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has
relied on the following citations:
1) AIR 1978 Mad 361 (P.Saraswathi Ammal /v/
Lakshmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam)
2) 2014 SCC Online Madras 11585 (Prakash
chand /v/ M/s. Velmurugan Constructions by its
Partners)
3) 2009-4 LW 357 (Rajeswari Ammal /v/
Arunachalam and Ors.)
4) 2014 SCC Online 12132 (Mallika /v/
Chellamuthu and Others)
5) Judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court in S.A(MD)No.964 of 2010 (R.Subbiah and
another /v/ Guruvammal)
6) 2003-2 Law Weekly 572 (Vanajakshi Ammal
and Anr. /v/ Raniammal)
20. On perusal of records it is seen that entire case is rest on Ex.A.4 - Sale
Deed, dated 02.04.2014. Ex.A4 - Sale Deed is duly registered document.
There is no dispute that the original of Ex.A.4 along with its parent deeds, were
handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant and the same are in possession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
plaintiff. However, there is also no dispute that the plaintiff is not in possession
of the suit property, even though there were rival contentions about the possession
and dispossession of the plaintiff of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff laid
the suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and for recovery of
possession. The defendant’s specific case is that Ex.A.4 was executed only for
security of the loan obtained by him from the plaintiff.
21. The Supreme Court reiterated that the ownership of immovable property
does not transfer until a registered sale deed is executed, even if possession has
been transferred and consideration paid. This is based on Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act for immovable property valued at Rs.100/- or more, a
registered instrument is required for a valid transfer. The definition of ‘transfer of
property’ under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (hereinafter
referred to as the TP Act), which reads thus:-
“5. “Transfer of property” defined. —In the
following sections “transfer of property” means an
act by which a living person conveys property, in
present or in future, to one or more other living
persons, or to himself, [or it himself] and one or
more other living persons; and “to transfer
property” is to perform such act. [In this section
“living person” includes a company or association
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
or body of individuals, whether incorporated or
not, but nothing herein contained shall affect any
law for the time being in force relating to transfer
of property to or by companies, associations or
bodies of individuals.]
22. It is appropriate and relevant to refer to the definition of ‘sale’ given
under Section 54 of the TP Act, which reads thus:-
''54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer
of ownership in exchange for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised.''
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act governs the registration of
different documents in respect of immovable property having value of Rs.100/-
and more and it also lays down an obligation to register the document with the
registrar office concerned, otherwise, the deed would be void.
23. The term ‘transfer’ is a word in a broader sense and the word ‘sale’ is a
specific word. Sale, going by the definition under the T.P. Act, presupposes
transfer from one person to another of the right in property and in other words, in
sale, the ownership of the property is transferred. A conjoint reading of Section
54 of the TP Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, mandates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
that transfer of ownership of any land worth more than Rs.100/- shall be effected
by a registered deed. Therefore, transfer of land worth more than Rs.100/- by a
registered deed implies transmutation of all rights as the vendor possessed in the
property concerned. A registered sale deed is presumed to be validly executed.
This presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the party contesting the validity must
provide evidence to the contrary, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Ram Pravesh vs. Vijram Singh and Manik Majumder /v/ Dipak
Kumar Saha. If the seller placed the contention that the sale deed was executed
to secure a loan, then he needs to provide evidence to support his claim. It is
settled position that a registered sale deed is a conclusive document of title if
executed in due compliance, as long as it is not proven to be a sham transaction,
then the burden of proof shifts to the seller to demonstrate that the sale deed was
not intended for transfer of ownership, but was merely a security for a loan. It is
also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodhar Narayan
Sawale (Died) through LRs. /v/ Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske and Others reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 566. The seller has to adduce evidence by way of loan
agreement, repayment schedules and other documents to support his claim that the
sale was only a security for a loan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
24. In the case on hand, the defendant submitted that the sale deed was
executed without intention of transferring ownership and only as collateral
financial security. Such a nature of case came for adjudication before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in which the Apex Court referred to Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act along with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, which
conclusively mandates for registration of sale deed of an immovable property for
its enforcement. While the execution and registration of the sale deed was not in
dispute, the seller disputes only the nature of transaction as security for loan, it is
to be noted that a registered sale deed having recitals for transfer of right, title and
interest in favour of the recipient along with recitals of sale consideration shall
give a presumption of valid title. Moreover, the defendant in his written statement
stated that when he borrowed loan from the plaintiff, he was compelled to execute
the sale deed as security for the loan. Therefore, the onus of proof is entirely upon
the seller to establish otherwise and to prove that the sale deed did not reflect the
true nature of transaction. In this case, on perusal of records, the trial Court has
correctly shifted the onus on the defendant, appellant herein, to prove that the sale
deed was executed only for security for the loan. There is no error in it as the
appellant's side argued that the trial Court committed an error on this aspect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
25. On perusal of Ex.A4, the sale deed is registered one for immovable
property more than Rs.100/-. The defendant has not placed any material to show
that he received a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, for which he executed
Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed only as nominal. On perusal evidence of the defendant as
D.W.1, who admitted as follows:
“th.rh.M.4 fpuag;gj;jpuj;jpy; cs;s ifbahg;gk;
vd;DilaJjhd;. … gHdpr;rhkpf;F fpuak; vGjpf;
bfhLg;gjw;F Kd;ghfnt vdf;F gjpt[j;Jiw
rk;ke;jkhd mDgtk; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.
th.rh.M.4 gj;jpuj;jpy; fpuarhrdk; vd;W vGjpapUe;jJ
vd;why; fpuarhrdk; vd;Wjhd; vGjpapUe;jJ.........
mlkhdg;gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhs;tjw;fhfj;jhd; vd;id
miHj;Jr;brd;whh;fs;. Vd; fpuarhrdk; vd;W
vGjpa[s;sPh;fs; vd;W nfl;nld;> ehd; gzj;ij
jpUg;gpf;bfhLj;jhy; kPz;Lk; fpuak; vGjpj;jUtjhf
vd;dplk; brhd;dhh;fs;. ehd; mt;thW nfl;ljhf
brhy;tJ fpua Mtzj;jpy; ifbaGj;J nghLtjw;F
Kd;ghf vd;why; rhpjhd;. th.rh.M.4 Mtzj;jpy; rpth
vd;gth; rhl;rp ifbahg;gkpl;Ls;sshh; vd;why; mth;
ahbud;W vdf;F bjhpahJ. ......th.rh.M.4 Mtzk;
bry;yhJ vd;W tHf;F vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
vd;why; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy….. ehd; bfhLj;j
g[fhhpd; mog;gilapy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if
gjpt[ bra;jhh;fsh vd;W bjhpatpy;iy. me;j
fhyf;fl;lj;jpy; thjpa[k; xU g[fhh; bfhLj;jhh;.....
ehq;fs; ,UtUnk g[fhh; bfhLj;jjhy; rptpy;
rk;ge;jg;gl;l gpur;rid vd;gjhy; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F
bry;YkhW fhty;fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mYtyfj;jpy;
brhd;dhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;.........”.
26. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant, it is clear that
he has stated that he borrowed loan from the plaintiff and as security for the loan
borrowed by the defendant, the plaintiff and his allies compelled the defendant
and got a deed styled as sale deed registered in his name. The defendant examined
the aforesaid Siva as D.W.2. He has also not deposed about the loan amount.
D.W.2 deposed as “gpujpthjp thjpaplk; fld; vJt[k; thq;fpa[s;shuh vd;why;
vdf;F bjhpahJ….... gpujpthjp vt;tst[ fld; thq;fpdhh; vd;W bjhpahJ.......”.
Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the defendant has not pleaded
how much he borrowed as loan from the plaintiff and when he obtained loan,
simply in his deposition, he stated that he obtained Rs.1,00,000/- that too without
any pleading and so the defendant has not established his case of loan. Moreover,
the plaintiff has marked Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14. In those statements, D.W.2 clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
stated that Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed was executed by the defendant as sale document
and not for security for loan. The defendant has not adduced any other evidence
to support his case.
27. The plaintiff proved the market value of the suit property as
Rs.10,00,000/- by producing Ex.A.3 - Registered Release Deed, dated 22.01.2014,
executed by the defendant’s sisters and his deceased brother’s legal heirs.
In Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed, dated 02.04.2014, the sale price is mentioned as
Rs.10,00,000/-. On perusal of the records, in the earlier suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015,
the plaintiff stated about Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed and in that suit, the defendant took
stand that the sale deed was executed on compulsion and undue influence while
borrowing loan. In the present suit, the plaintiff also pleaded the same version.
But the defendant has not taken any effective steps to file suit or any legal
proceedings to set aside or cancel the sale deed, as rightly held by the trial Court.
The defendant has also admitted in his evidence that the name of the plaintiff has
been transferred in respect of property tax, revenue records and electricity
connection after Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed. As per the provision of Section 114(e) of the
Indian Evidence Act presumption is made in favour of the document holder, which
has been duly registered. Moreover, as per Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence
Act, the defendant cannot give oral evidence against the registered document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
There can be no reason to disbelieve a recital contained in a registered sale deed
regarding payment of consideration, executed by the vendor.
28. The next contention of the appellant is that the plaintiff has not added
the daughters of the defendant as they also shown as sellers in Ex.A.4. As rightly
argued by the plaintiff side that the suit property is not an ancestral property and it
was purchased by defendant’s father through Ex.A.1 and that after demise of
father of defendant, his mother executed settlement deed - Ex.A.2 and his sisters
with other legal heirs executed the release deed Ex.A.3 and therefore, the
defendant is the absolute owner and hence, the daughters of the defendant would
have got any right over the suit property. It is pertinent to note here that the
defendant executed Ex.A.4 for himself and also on behalf of his minor daughters.
The trial Court has rightly appreciated in its judgment in this regard.
29. On scanning of entire material records along with oral and documentary
evidence, it is clear that Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed, dated 02.04.2014, is registered and its
executant, namely, the defendant, endorsed its execution and fully endorsed its
contents and its execution, but deposed differently on its intention. Thus, the
admitted position is that its execution and registration are not in dispute. Since it is
a registered sale deed and its execution is not in dispute, it must carry a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
presumption that the transaction was a genuine one. Thus, evidently, the dispute is
only in regard to the nature of transaction. Being a registered one and apparently
containing the stipulations of transfer of right, title and interest in favour of the
plaintiff over the suit property described therein and also recital regarding receipt
of sale consideration, the burden was entirely on the defendant to establish
otherwise and to prove that it did not reflect the true nature of transaction.
But, the defendant's side has failed to establish so as rightly held by the trial
Court. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly held that the registered sale deed
Ex.A.4 has been properly executed for sale consideration and the defendant failed
to establish that Ex.A.4 was executed only for security for loan. Though, as per
citations relied on by the defendant that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of loop
holes of the defendant, in this case, the facts and circumstances are entirely
different, so the citations are not applicable to the facts of this case. As held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while the seller takes a stand in respect of registered
sale deed that the sale deed was nominal and executed for security for loan, the
seller has to establish his version. The citations relied on by the defendants are
squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
30. The very object of the mandate for registration of transfer of an
immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- under Section 54 of the Transfer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
Property Act, 1882, r/w Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, is primarily to
give certainty to title. When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no
proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of the Evidence Act is
necessary. I do not think it proper or necessary to enter into the extrinsic evidence
relating sale transaction covered by sale deed, dated 02.04.2014. It is pertinent to
note here that by virtue of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section
17 of the Registration Act and since the immovable property was worth more than
Rs.100/-, Ex.A.4 was reduced in writing and registered. The intention of the
parties is also reflected specifically in Ex.A.4 and at the same time, nothing
reflects a contra-intention not to pass the title and ownership. In other words, the
need to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of
parties in deciding the passing of title would arise only if the recitals in the
document are indecisive and ambiguous. The oral evidence of the defendant could
not override the registered Ex.A.4 - Sale Deed. In such circumstances, the trial
Court has correctly come to the decision in decreeing the suit.
31. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court
has correctly appreciated the evidence adduced on both side and after considering
the arguments and citations relied on by both side, the trial Court correctly held
that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and recovery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
possession as sought in the suit and that the defendant failed to establish his case
that he executed the registered sale deed for security for loan. For all these
reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and the
same need not be interfered by way of this appeal suit. Thus, the Appeal Suit fails.
32. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. The judgment and
decree, dated 06.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Karur, is confirmed. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Karur.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 01:09:48 pm )
