IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 RSA.No. 1373 of 2010(E) ----------------------- AS.38/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM OS.494/1998 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ SUMATHI USHAKUMARI, W/O.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, UMA NIVAS, CHATTINAMKULAM, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED SHEREEF, S/O.HAMEED KUNJU, KETTIDATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAMKARA MURI, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. 2. RAVIKUMAR, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, RAVI VIHAR, CHATHINAMKULAM MURI, MANGAD VILLAGE, KARIKODE, KOLLAM TALUK. 3. VIJAYAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, NELLIVILA VEEDU, PEROOR, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 4. UDAYABHANU, KALLUVILA, KIZHAKKATHIL, MECKONE, PEROOR, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR(CAVEATOR) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.S.A. No. 1373 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of July,2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.494/1998 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam is the appellant. Defendants are the respondents. Appellant instituted the suit to set aside Ext.A2, A3 to A5, B4 sale deeds. Appellant contended that the plaint schedule property belongs to her under Ext.A1. Though Exts.A2 and A3 sale deeds were executed in favour of respondents 4 and 2, they were executed only as security and by the said sale deeds right of the appellant has not been assigned in favour of respondents 2 and 4 and though fourth respondent assigned his right to third respondent and third respondent along with the second respondent assigned their rights in favour of the first respondent, they did not R.S.A.No.1373/2010 2 obtain any right or title to the property and the possession continued with the appellant and therefore appellant is entitled to a declaration that respondents did not derive any title to the plaint schedule property under Ext.A2 to A5 sale deeds and they have no right to trespass into the property. Appellant also sought a consequential decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. Respondents resisted the suit contending that under Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds appellant transferred her entire rights in favour of respondents 4 and 2 and subsequently fourth respondent assigned his rights obtained under Ext.A2 in favour of the third respondent under Ext.A4 sale deed and later third respondent along with the second respondent assigned their right in favour of the first respondent and first respondent is therefore entitled to the property and he is in possession of the property and appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for. 2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1, DW1 R.S.A.No.1373/2010 3 Exts.A1 to A11, B1 to B9 dismissed the suit holding that under Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds appellant had parted with her right and title to the property and it was not executed as security as claimed by the appellant and possession was also transferred under Ext.A5 sale deed and first respondent is in possession of the property and therefore dismissed the suit. Appellant challenged the judgment before the Sub Court,Kollam in A.S.38/2010. Learned Sub Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant was heard. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that Ext.A1 sale deed shows that the property was purchased in 1966 for Rs.40,000/- and Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds show that that properties were sold in favour of respondents 4 and 2 respectively under Exts.A2 and A3 sale deeds for Rs.12,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and the property which was purchased R.S.A.No.1373/2010 4 for Rs.40,000/- will not be sold for Rs.32,000/- and that itself establishes that Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds were not executed as genuine sale deeds but were executed only as security for the loan and the courts below should have accepted the case. Learned counsel also argued that the evidence establish that appellant continued to be in possession of the property inspite of Exts.A2 and A3 and in such circumstances it should have been found that Ext.A2 and A3 are not valid sale deeds and as appellant continued to be in possession of the property respondents are not entitled to trespass into the property. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 6. As righly found by the courts below appellant is admitting that she executed Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds respectively in favour of respondents 4 and 2. Though the consideration shown in Ext.A2 is Rs.12,000/- and Ext.A3 is Rs.20,000/- and the R.S.A.No.1373/2010 5 consideration shown in Ext.A4 is Rs.30,000/- it cannot be said that Ext.A2 and A3 are not sale deeds executed by the appellant but executed as security for the loan as claimed by the appellant. The value of a property depends upon several factors. If the appellant was pressed for money, she may sell the property for a lesser value than the actual value. Therefore based on the inadequacy of the consideration itself it cannot be said that Exts.A2 and A3 are not valid sale deeds. Moreover the consideration shown in Exts.A2 and A3 are not unconscionably inadequate so as to find they are not valid sale deeds. On a proper appreciation of the evidence, courts below rightly found that Exts.A2 and A3 are valid sale deeds. The right, title and possession of the appellant was transferred to respondents 4 and 2 and the fourth respondent under Ext.A4 transferred his right obtained under Ext.A2 in favour of the third respondent and the third respondent along with the second respondent assigned their right in favour of R.S.A.No.1373/2010 6 first respondent. The factual findings are in accordance with the evidence. I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006