If the Sale Deed Is Sham, There Can Be No Reconveyance; If Valid, It Cannot Be Cancelled – Kerala High Court Slams Contradictory Pleas, Dismisses Appeal in Land Dispute

“A Plaintiff Cannot Claim Specific Performance While Also Alleging the Sale Deed Is Void or Sham” – Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered a significant judgment, upholding the dismissal of a suit that sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey property, while simultaneously seeking to cancel the same sale deed and declare it void or sham. The Court decisively held that such inconsistent reliefs cannot coexist in law, remarking that the plaintiffs' case was "legally self-destructive" and based on unsubstantiated and improbable claims.

The Court observed, “When the original plaintiff seeks specific performance, he admits the conveyance under the sale deed. On the face of such prayer, the relief sought to cancel or declare the deed void is apparently inconsistent.”

Incoherent Pleadings Fatally Undermine Suit

At the core of the Court’s ruling was the recognition that the plaintiffs had pleaded mutually exclusive and irreconcilable theories. While demanding specific performance of an oral promise to reconvey the property (implying the original sale was valid), they also sought to cancel the same deed, and in the alternative, declare it a nullity or a sham transaction.

The Bench held that such an approach was fundamentally flawed in law:

“If the document is null and void, there is no question of seeking reconveyance. If the document is a sham, then again, reconveyance or cancellation does not arise. Suffice to say, the suit is not properly framed.”

The Court further noted that these contradictory positions exposed a deeper lack of credibility and internal consistency, ultimately eroding the case’s legal foundation.

Oral Agreement Theory Rejected as Unbelievable

The plaintiff claimed he had executed the sale deed not to transfer ownership, but merely to help the defendant secure a loan, with an oral promise that the property would be reconveyed within a year. This was allegedly done because financial institutions would not accept third-party collateral.

The Court found this claim both unsubstantiated and implausible, stating:There was no necessity to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff could have very well stood as guarantor or mortgaged the property in favour of his own daughter.

The Court also pointed out that if security was all that was needed, there was no explanation why the property was conveyed to a third party instead of being mortgaged for the benefit of the plaintiff’s daughter, Preethy, who was the central figure in the alleged transaction.

“The explanation that the bank rejected the plaintiff’s property as security due to his old age is unsustainable. When a mortgage is created, the age of the mortgagor is irrelevant,” the Court said.

Preethy's Absence from Witness Box Was Damning

Despite being the main participant in the business dealings that allegedly necessitated the transfer of property, Preethy Mathew—the plaintiff’s daughter—was neither originally impleaded nor examined as a witness. When she was later added as co-plaintiff after the plaintiff’s death, she still failed to testify, despite being summoned.

The Court held: “In spite of issuance of summons, Preethy did not appear. Even after impleadment, she failed to mount the witness box. An adverse inference must be drawn against the plaintiffs.”

Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, such withholding of the most material witness presumes that her testimony would have been unfavourable to the plaintiffs.

Sale Consideration Proven, Charity Claim Debunked

The defendant presented detailed bank records and documents proving that ₹62 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff and his daughter. The plaintiff attempted to explain away the payments as donations for a “charity food program” under a local Panchayat scheme, but this theory collapsed under scrutiny.

The Court observed: “There is no evidence of any such Panchayat-sponsored food program. The supposed Panchayat member denied any such involvement, and the plaintiff himself could not name a single beneficiary or produce any records.”

The Court concluded that the alleged payments were in fact consideration for the sale, not charity.

Moreover, a detailed examination of transactions revealed that the defendant had already paid ₹2.25 crores to Preethy in a separate property deal that failed, and subsequently paid additional amounts to both Preethy and the plaintiff when the current property (Ext.A1) was sold.

“The execution of Ext.A1 was supported by consideration. The version of the defendant is corroborated by documents and circumstances, while the plaintiffs’ explanation is contradictory and unconvincing,” the Court held.

Possession and Title Support Defendant’s Case

The Court accepted that the defendant had been in possession of the property since the sale in 2014. Mutation of title had been effected, tax was being paid by the defendant, and no rebuttal was offered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s own cross-examination confirmed that he was not in actual possession.

“Exts.B6 and B7 establish that mutation was completed and tax was being paid since 2014. The finding of the trial court on possession is well-founded,” the Court noted.

Criminal Antecedents Noted, Though Not Determinative

While not central to the judgment, the Court also remarked that several criminal complaints had been filed against the plaintiff and Preethy involving allegations of property fraud and cheating, adding:

“Though not directly relevant, it casts a shadow on the credibility of the parties and supports the conclusion that their version lacks reliability.”

Affirming the trial court’s judgment, the Kerala High Court declared that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the oral agreement, failed to establish the sale as sham or void, and failed to present a legally coherent case.

“The conclusions of the trial court on the validity of Ext.A1 and possession are justified and warrant no interference. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.”

This ruling underscores the indispensable requirement of legal consistency in pleadings, the importance of documentary proof over oral assertions, and the principle that **registered conveyances cannot be lightly undone on vague or contradictory claims of informal agreements.

Date of Decision: 23 July 2025