P. KrishnaKumar,J.

1. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title over immovable properties and for recovery of money is the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed with the following reliefs:

                “a) to declare that the plaintiffis the absolute and exclusive owner of the plaint schedule properties.

                b) to permit the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of his title from the defendantsand, ifthey refuseto abideby thedecree and vacate the plaint schedule properties, to allow the plaintiff to recover the same through the process of court.

                c) to pass a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from entering into the plaint schedule properties and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff.

                d) if prayers (a)to(c)are found to be not allowable, to direct the defendants to pay Rs.33,50,000/- + Rs.2,20,63,435/-, totalling Rs.2,54,13,435/-”.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’, as the other defendants have only a limited role in the case) were childhood friends. The plaintiff went abroad and started working in a mobile shop in Dubai. Initially, he worked in a mobile shop by the name Al Bash Communications. Later, he started his own mobile shop under the name Plus Point Phone Trading Company.

4. According to the plaintiff, he sent an amount of Rs.33,50,000/- to the defendant for purchasing immovable properties in his name. However, the defendant purchased the properties in his own name as well as in the names of his relatives. When the plaintiff realised this, the defendant explained that if the properties were purchased in the plaintiff’s name, there would be enquiries regarding the source of the large amount utilised for the purchase. The plaintiff therefore alleges that the defendant is holding the properties in trust as a trustee for the plaintiff. The first three reliefs in the plaint were sought on the basis of the above allegations. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.33,50,000/- together with interest.

5. The plaintiff further alleged that, while conducting Plus Point Phone Trading Company in Dubai, he had sent various consignments of mobile phones, electronic goods, and mobile accessories to the defendant. These consignments were allegedly sent for sale through mobile shops functioning at Penta Menaka, Ernakulam, and M/s. Pearl Trading Company, Thavanoor. According to the plaintiff, the capital investment for both these establishments was made by him. Earlier also, the plaintiff had sent similar consignments to M/s. Pearl Trading Company while he was working at Al Bash Communications. The plaintiff further alleged that, whenever he demanded accounts, the defendant used to state that the business was running at a loss. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is therefore liable to repay Rs.2,20,63,435/-, being the value of the consignments. Accordingly, recovery of the said amount was also sought.

6.   The defendant denied the entire allegation sand contended that the actual transaction between the parties was one of investments made by the plaintiff in the business conducted by the defendant. According to the defendant, he had been conducting several businesses for many years and the plaintiff, who had been working as an autorickshaw driver before going abroad, started sending money to him for investment in the defendant’s business, for which profits were periodically paid to the plaintiff.

7. It was further contended that the plaintiff cheated an Arab national, consequent to which criminal proceedings were initiated against him in India, making it impossible for the defendant to continue business relations with him. Thereafter, the defendant allegedly settled all accounts with the plaintiff by executing four sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff, his wife, and son (Exts.B1 to B4). A cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- was also issued towards full and final settlement, and the plaintiff agreed to discharge liabilities arising out of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and MDC Bank, executing Ext.A5 undertaking in that regard. According to the defendant, the plaintiff later resiled from his obligation sand failed to clear the liability dueto MDC Bank, and thereafter instituted the present suit with ulterior motives.

8.   The defendant further contended that Pearl Trading Company belonged to him and that he had no shop at Ernakulam. It was also contended that only three consignments were received from Plus Point Phone Trading Company, a firm in which the plaintiff was a partner, and that payment for those consignments had already been made by the defendant.

9. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and DW2, along with Exts.A1 to A23 and Exts.B1 to B24. In the impugned judgment, the trial court observed that the plaintiff admittedly came to know in the year 2009 that the defendant had purchased the properties in his own name and that, subsequently, in 2013, the plaintiff purchased properties belonging to the defendant under Exts.B1 to B4 by paying consideration, which would have been highly unlikely if any debt had been due from the defendant at that time. The court further observed that the plaintiff suppressed the execution of Exts.B1 to B4 in the plaint. On that basis, the trial court found the defendant ’s contention that the transactions between the parties stood settled through Exts.B1 to B4 and the cheque payment, to be probable.

10. The trial court also found that, if consignments worth about Rs.2.2 crores had in fact been sent by the plaintiff by paying their price, substantial documentary evidence ought to have been available with him, but none was produced. It was further held that any amount allegedly due to Al Bash Communications could not be claimed by the plaintiff, who admittedly was only an employee therein. The claim was also found to be barred by limitation.

11. We have heard Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, and Sri. A. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

12. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration:

                (a) Whether the plaintiff has any right over the plaint schedule properties and, if not, whether he is entitledto recover Rs.33.5 lakhs from the defendant?

                (b) Whether the plaintiff sentitled to recover Rs.2,20,63,435/-fromthedefendant?

13. The plaint does not disclose the date on which the plaintiff allegedly sent Rs.33,50,000/- to the defendant for purchasing properties in his name. The mode by which the said amount was allegedly transferred or handed over is also not stated. The proof affidavit is likewise silent on these aspects. The plaintiff has not produced any document to establish that he had remitted Rs.33,50,000/- to the defendant prior to the execution of Exts.A1 to A4. The defendant specifically denied the allegations and contended that the properties were purchased by him and his relatives using their own funds and for the consideration reflected in the respective documents.

14. During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had permanently returned to his native place on 29.07.2009 and had thereafter discontinued his business abroad. It is stated in the plaint that whenever the plaintiff demanded the documents relating to the purchase of the properties, the defendant used to evade the request and that, when it was realized that the properties had not been purchased in the plaintiff’s name, the defendant falsely represented that purchase in the plaintiff’s name would invite enquiries regarding the source of funds. The relevant pleading reads thus:

                “Believing these things, the plaintiff had sent anamount of Rs.33,50,000/- to the first defendant with an instruction topurchase theproperties inthe nameof the plaintiff. Very cunningly, the first defendant purchased the property in his name and in his wife's name and his brother-in-law's name. Whenever the documents were asked by the plaintiff, first defendant used to say that all the documents are kept in safe lockers of the bank and there is no room for any worry. When it was found that the properties are purchased in the name of the first defendant, his wife and brother-in-law, he had been making limping excuses and falsely stated that if the properties are purchased in the name of the plaintiff, there is a chance for having an enquiry about the huge money expended for the purchase.” Sri. Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, did not pursue the allegation in the plaint that the defendant held the properties in trust. What remains for consideration is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendant fraudulently obtained the properties by creating the title deeds in his/his relative’s name.

15. Incross-examination,the plaintiff stated that the amount was sent to the defendant during the year 2005. Exts.A1 to A4 disclose that the properties were purchased during the period 2007–2008. The plaintiff instituted the suit only in the year 2014, alleging that he came to know of the fraud only on 04.03.2014. As stated above, he had permanently returned to his native place on 29.07.2009. In such circumstances, if at all there was any fraud, it is improbable that the plaintiff did not understand it till 04.03.2014.

16. There exists a presumption that a registered document has been validly executed. A registered sale deed, therefore, prima facie carries with it an inference that the transaction was validly effected in favour of the purchaser upon payment of consideration by him to the vendor. The burden of proving otherwise lies upon the person alleging misrepresentation or fraud in the execution of the document and asserting that the consideration was in fact paid by him. No such evidence is forthcoming in the present case. In the absence of specific evidence regarding payment of consideration and other material particulars referred to above, the plaintiff cannot sustain a claim of this nature. We therefore concur with the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in respect of the plaint schedule properties or to recovery of Rs.33,50,000/- from the defendant.

17. Coming to the claim for recovery of Rs.2,20,63,435/- allegedly representing the value of consignments sent by the plaintiff, the claim is clearly barred by limitation. Admittedly, the transactions in question took place during the period 2004–2008, whereas the suit came to be instituted only in the year 2014. As stated above, though the plaintiff attempted to characterise the transaction as one out of trust, the said contention was not pursued before us. Anyway, the facts established on record would only indicate that the claim is for the price of goods allegedly supplied to the defendant.

18. Referring to the decision in Mansa Ram and Sons (Bankers) (M/s.), Dehradun and Others v. M/s. Janki Dass Om Prakash, New Delhi and Others (AIR 1984 All. 267), Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that as the defendant has acknowledged his liability even in the written statement, a fresh period of limitation would start to run, as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We are unable to accept the said contention. Section 18 applies only when the acknowledgment is made within the subsisting period of limitation. An acknowledgment made after expiry of the limitation period would not revive a time-barred debt unless it constitutes a fresh agreement within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.

19. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to sustain the claim by placing reliance on Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned counsel invited attention to the following admission contained in the written statement of the defendant:

              

                Placing reliance on the decisions in Elampallor Trust v. Kamalakshy Amma (1989 KHC 309) and Ram Janki Devi and Another v. M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat (1971 KHC 465), it was contended that the term “investment” would amount to a deposit of money in the business of the defendant and, therefore, limitation would commence only upon demand for repayment. Further relying on Thankiah v. Ponnan Nadar (1954 KHC 160), Narayana Pillai v. Raghavan Pillai (1953 KHC 174) and Ganapatha J. v. M/s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust, represented by its Trustees (2025 KHC 6270), the learned counsel urged that this Court may suitably mould the reliefs and grant an appropriate decree in the interests of justice. Article 22 reads thus:

              

20. Though the argument appears attractive at first blush, the contention advanced is inconsistent with the facts borne out from the record. What was admitted by the defendant was only that the plaintiff had made certain investments in the business conducted by him and that the said amounts had been repaid along with profits. According to the defendant, the entire transactions between the parties stood settled by conveyance of his properties in favour of the plaintiff under Exts.B1 to B4. Such an admission does not in any manner assist the plaintiff in staking a claim for recovery of Rs.2,20,63,435/- on account of the alleged consignments of electronic goods. In fact, during cross-examination, the plaintiff himself clarified the true nature of the alleged “investment” in unequivocal terms. He stated thus:

               

                A similar averment is also seen in paragraph 4 of the plaint. Above all, in order to attract Article 22 of the Limitation Act, it must be specifically pleaded and proved that money was deposited under an agreement that it would be repayable on demand. No such pleading or proof is available in the present case.

21. Apart from the above, the plaintiff has failed to establish that an amount of Rs.2,20,63,435/-is due from the defendant. There is no reliable documentary evidence to show that the defendant had received goods from the plaintiff worth the said amount. Exts.A8 to A10 were relied upon by the plaintiff to prove the value of the consignments allegedly sent to the defendant. The trial court declined to place reliance on those documents on the ground that they were only photocopies and that their contents were not duly proved in accordance with law.

22. Even otherwise, according to the plaintiff himself, most of the transactions were carried out during the period when he was working merely as an employee of Al Bash Communications. There is no pleading in the plaint that the value of the consignments had been paid by the plaintiff to Al Bash Communications on behalf of the defendant so as to entitle him to claim reimbursement from the defendant.

23. It is true that the plaintiff produced Ext.A19, a letter purportedly issued by Al Bash Communications stating that payment had been made by him to the company. However, the saidl etter came to be issued only after the institution of the suit. The contents thereof were not proved before the court, since the person alleged to have issued the letter was not examined, despite specific objection and denial raised by the defendant. Interestingly, Sri. A. Jani, the learned counsel for the defendant, invited our attention to Ext. B22 criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. In that complaint, the plaintiff stated that the price of the goods sent to the defendant is only Rs.1 crore.

24. In short, the claim for recovery of Rs.2,20,63,435/- is not only barred by limitation but also remains unsubstantiated by acceptable evidence. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court.

                 As a result,the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree is upheld. No costs.