1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Kollam in O.S. No.334 of 2009. The appellant is the plaintiff.

2. According to the plaintiff, she borrowed Rs. 75,000/- from the 1st defendant for her daughter’s marriage and, at his demand, executed Ext. A1 sale deed dated 28.04.1997 transferring the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 25 cents, in favour of the 1st defendant on an oral agreement that the property would be re- conveyed on repayment of the loan. During 2006, the 1st defendant demanded payment of Rs. 1,75,000/-. As the plaintiff was unable to pay the amount, she approached the 2nd defendant, a money lender, who introduced her to the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant agreed to lend Rs. 1,75,000/- and, accordingly, paid the said amount to the 1st defendant, whereupon the 1st defendant executed Ext. A2 sale deed dated 29.12.2006 in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant. There was an oral agreement that on repayment of the loan amount, the property would be re-conveyed to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff sought re-conveyance of the property, the 3rd defendant refused and demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- for the same. The plaintiff is entitled to re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property and is ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement by paying the borrowed amount along with interest and costs of the execution of the sale deed. Accordingly, the suit is filed for specific performance of the oral agreement for re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property.

3. The defendants filed separate written statements resisting the suit. The defendants contended that there is no cause of action and the suit is to be dismissed. The 1st defendant stated that the suit is not maintainable as it relates to a property sold 12 years back. It was further stated that there was no loan transaction as alleged and no agreement for re-conveyance of the property.

4. The 2nd defendant stated that he acted merely as a broker at the time of execution of the two sale deeds, that there was no agreement for re-conveyance, and that the transaction was a sale and not a document created as security.

5. The 3rd defendant stated that he had purchased the property from the 1st defendant as per Ext. A2 sale deed, that he is in possession of the same, that mutation has been effected in his name, and that he has been paying tax thereon. It was further stated that there was no loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 and no oral agreement for re-conveyance of the property upon repayment of any loan.

6. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the contentions raised by the defendants.

7. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A16 were marked. Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW2 and Exts. C1 to C4 were marked. The Document writer of Ext. A2 deed was examined as PW3. Defendants 1 to 3 were examined as DWs 1 to 3 respectively and Exts. B1 to B13 were marked.

8. The learned Sub Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an oral agreement with the 1st defendant in 1997 and with the 3rd defendant in 2006 regarding re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property, and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal.

9. The points that arise for determination are:

                   i. Whether Exts. A1 and A2 documents were executed as security for the loan availed by the plaintiff?

                   ii. Was there an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant for re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property at the time of execution of Ext. A1 sale deed, and between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant at the time of execution of Ext. A2 sale deed?

10. Heard Smt. Meena A., the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Rajesh Subramanian, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Praveen H, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. R. Ranjith, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

11. The case set up by the plaintiff is that she borrowed Rs.75,000/- from the 1st defendant and as a security for the said transaction, executed Ext.A1 sale deed dated 28.04.2007 transferring the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant on an oral agreement that the property would be re-conveyed on repayment of the loan. In 2006, the 1st defendant demanded Rs.1,75,000/- from the plaintiff being the loan amount with interest and feeling helpless, she contacted the 2nd defendant, a broker to money lenders and the 2nd defendant introduced the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant paid Rs.1,75,000/- to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant executed Ext.A2 sale deed dated 29.12.2006 in respect of the plaint schedule property to the 3rd defendant on an oral agreement to re- convey the property to the plaintiff on payment of the amount borrowed with interest. However, when the plaintiff approached the 3rd defendant for re-conveyance, he demanded Rs.15 lakhs. The plaintiff says that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the oral agreement by paying the borrowed money with interest and cost of execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, she got the plaint schedule property having an extent of 10.12 Ares (25 cents) comprised in Re-Sy. Nos. 373/5 and 373/9 in Thrikadavoor Village by virtue of Ext.A6 partition deed. The extent of the plaint schedule property covered by Re-Sy. No.373/9 is 5.92 Ares and the property covered by Re-Sy. No.373/5 is 4.20 Ares. To contend that Exts. A1 and A2 sale deeds were executed only as security for the loans availed by the plaintiff, she advanced the following arguments:

                   (i) At the time of execution of Exts. A1 and A2, 4.20 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 373/5, forming part of the plaint schedule property, was not in her name; she owned only 5.92 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 373/9.

                   (ii) The plaint schedule property, having an extent of 25 cents, forms part of 87 cents covered by Ext. A6 partition deed and lies contiguous with other properties within the same compound wall, without measurement or demarcation. The Advocate Commissioner has also reported that it lies contiguous with the plaintiff’s other properties.

                   (iii) The defendants have never come to the property, nor identified, measured, or taken possession of the same, which continues in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

                   (iv) The said 4.20 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 373/5 was conveyed to one Sajeev Chandran under Ext. A7 sale deed dated 31.07.2004, in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 470 of 1992 for specific performance. Had defendants 1 and 3 conducted due enquiry at the time of executing of Exts. A1 and A2, they would have known that the said property was not in the plaintiff’s name.

                   (v) The prior title deeds were not handed over to defendants 1 and 3.

                   (vi) The 1st defendant did not effect mutation of the property in his name for nine years.

                   (vii) The consideration shown in the sale deeds is not commensurate with the market value.

                   (viii) The 3rd defendant did not take any steps even after cancellation of the mutation.

12. The 3rd defendant has produced the original of Ext.A2 sale deed as Ext.B1, receipts evidencing payment of tax pursuant to mutation as Ext.B2 series, the original of Ext.A1 sale deed as Ext.B5 and the original of Ext.A6 partition deed as Ext.B7. The 3rd defendant has stated that Exts.B5 and B7 prior deeds were handed over to him by the 1st defendant at the time of execution of Ext.A2 sale deed. The originals of prior title deeds have been produced by the 3rd defendant. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that since prior deeds of the property have not been handed over as mandated under Section 55(3) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Exts.A1 and A2 were executed only as security for the loans availed by her, cannot be sustained.

13. From the plaintiff’s own averments, she had earlier entered into an agreement for sale of 4.20 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No.373/5 with one Sajeev Chandran and the latter had filed a suit for specific performance and Ext. A7 sale deed in respect of the said extent of the land was executed through the process of court. Taking advantage of the same, she contends that at the time of execution of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds, 4.20 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No.373/5 which forms part of the plaint schedule property was not in her name and that the defendants did not make any enquiry regarding the property and therefore, it has to be concluded that the documents were executed as security. There is no basis for such contention. It may be true that the properties were not measured at the time of execution of the sale deeds. It was for the plaintiff to disclose that she had earlier executed an agreement for sale of 4.20 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No.373/5 to defendants 1 and 3 at the time of execution of Exts. A1 and A2 sale deeds, whether they be documents as security for loan or actual sale deeds. Further, even in the plaint, the plaint schedule property has been described as 10.12 Ares of land, inclusive of 4.20 Ares in Re.Sy. No.373/5. Mere absence of title over part of the property does not prove that the transaction was security.

14. With regard to the plaintiff’s contention that defendants 1 and 3 did not take possession of the plaint schedule property, it is to be noted that, according to her evidence, neither she nor her children are in possession of the property. The learned Sub Judge is justified in declining to accept the evidence of PW2, the Advocate Commissioner, regarding possession of the plaint schedule property, as the inspection was not conducted in the presence of defendants 1 and 3. The fact that the 1st defendant did not mutate the property in his name for nine years, by itself, cannot be a reason to presume that the sale deed was executed as security for the loan. Further, this raises the question as to why the plaintiff did not take any steps for re-conveyance of the property from the 1st defendant during these nine years. The 3rd defendant had already mutated the property, though the mutation in respect of 4.20 Ares of land in Re- Sy. No.373/5 has been canceled by the RDO, Kollam.

15. As regards the contention that the consideration shown in the sale deeds is not commensurate with the market value, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence as to what was the actual market value of the property at the time of transaction.

16. It is to be noted that, both Exts.A1 and A2 documents are styled as sale deeds and contains all the recitals of a sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, going by Exts.A1 and A2 registered documents, it is evident that sale as provided under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act had taken place. The plaintiff has not challenged the sale deeds. The execution of the sale deeds is admitted. The suit is one for re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property. This itself indicates that the property had been conveyed by her to the 1st defendant, and thereafter by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant. Her case is that the same were executed as security for the loan availed and was not intended to be acted upon. It is trite that once a document is registered, there is a presumption of correctness attached to it. It is to be presumed that the document has been duly executed and registered in accordance with law. In Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                   "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.”

In Santhosh Devi v. Sunder [2025 KHC 6446], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following the aforesaid decision, reiterated the legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered. This Court in Bhasy v. Thomman and others [2022 (4) KHC 362] held that in case of a registered document, the presumption under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 would come into play to infer that there was due execution of the document. Smt. Meena relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samiullah v. State of Bihar [2025 KHC 6918] and the decision of this Court in C.V. Suresh v. Tobin (minor) and Another [2013 (1) KLT 293] and contended that registration of a document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership and the presumption is rebuttable. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to rebut the said presumption. As rightly observed by the learned Sub Judge, other than mere suggestion regarding the case of the plaintiff put to the defendants in their cross-examinations, nothing was elicited so as to suggest that Exts.A1 and A2 were executed as documents of security. The plaintiff failed to lead cogent evidence to rebut the presumption available to Exts.A1 and A2.

17. This Court, in Bhasy (supra), held that a sale agreement can also be oral and it is not necessary that the agreement be written. However, it should be within the ambit of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, and all oral and written agreements shall fulfill the conditions specified in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act. Nothing prevented the plaintiff from making the contents of the alleged oral agreement part of Exts.A1 and A2 documents. In S.R.Balakrishnan and Another v. Yakoob and Others [2001 KHC 32: ILR 2001 (2) Ker.521] and in Bhasy (supra), this Court held that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted on the basis of an oral agreement unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove the agreement. As regards the plea of oral agreement, the plaintiff could not establish by cogent evidence that there was an oral agreement between her and the 1st defendant at the time of execution of Ext.A1 and with the 3rd defendant at the time of execution of Ext.A2 as regards re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property. The learned Sub Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an oral agreement as pleaded.

In the light of the above discussion, I find that the judgment and decree of the trial court warrants no interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, will stand closed.