JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J . 1. Defendants 3 and 4 in a suit for declaration, cancellation of document and consequential injunction, have come up before this court aggrieved by the reversal of the Judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, in O.S No.216/2010, dismissing the suit. 2. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 4 Acres of land comprised in Re Survey No.338, Periya Village in Mananthavady Taluk. The plaint schedule property standing as a single holding was derived by the plaintiff by virtue of Sale Deed No.1110/2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Mananthavady. The 2nd defendant, who is the husband of the elder sister of the plaintiff, had certain financial transactions, had approached the 1st defendant for a sale of land for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. During the first week of April 2009, defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and informed that the 2nd defendant, who came into agreement with the 1 st defendant for a sale of 2 nd defendant’s property having 1 Acres 74 Cents for a total consideration of 10,50,000/-, and out of which the 2 nd defendant received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the 1 st defendant as advance sale consideration. But, due to certain difficulties the said transaction could not be taken forward. The 1 st defendant thus demanded the repayment of the amount and the accordingly, the 2 nd defendant agreed to return back the advance sale consideration received by him. Accordingly, the 2 nd defendant paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the 1 st defendant and sought time to return the balance amount of Rs.5,80,000/-. Thereafter, in terms of the mediation talks between the defendants 1 and 2 in the presence of respectable mediators, the issues were amicably settled. As per the mediation, the 2 nd defendant sought more time to return the above amount. In terms of the said mediation settlement, the 2 nd defendant had issued a cheque infavour of the 1 st defendant. As per the mediation, the 2 nd defendant sought more time to return the above amount. In terms of the said mediation settlement, the 2 nd defendant had issued a cheque infavour of the 1 st defendant. The plainti was further informed that for obeying the conditions of mediation, the plaintiff was required to register an assignment deed of the property infavour of the 1 st defendant and that the defendants 1 and 2 further assured the plaintiff, that the registration of the above deed was only as a security and in no way the transfer and ownership or possession over the plaint scheduled property will pass to the 1 st defendant. The plainti representation and assurance given by the defendants 1 and 2, expressed her willingness to execute the assignment deed and accordingly, on 17.04.2009 along with defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the SRO Mananthavady and affixed her signature in the assignment deed No.1519/2009. It is contended that the plaintiff did not receive any consideration from defendants 1 and 2, since it was only a security document. During the first week of July, 2010, when the plaintiff along with her husband and some workers were doing manual work at the plaint scheduled property, defendants 3 and 4 along with the other persons approached the plaintiff and informed that they have purchased the plaint scheduled property and they are the owners of the property. The plaintiff thereafter made enquires about the fact and understood that the assurance given by the defendants 1 and 2 were violated and the 1 st defendant executed an assignment deed No.370/2010 of S.R.O Mananthavady in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Thus according to the plaintiff, the Sale Deed No.1519/2009 of S.R.O Mananthavady executed by the plaintiff is a sham document and was never intended to take place and can only be construed as security document. Thus, consequently, the sale deed No.370/2010 dated 23.01.2010 is also sought to be declared as null and void. 3. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit, the 1 st defendant denied the averments contained in the plaint and contended that there was no assurance to the plaintiff as claimed. The 2nd defendant on contrary supported the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the 1 st defendant had agreed to re-convey the property to the plaintiff. 3. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit, the 1 st defendant denied the averments contained in the plaint and contended that there was no assurance to the plaintiff as claimed. The 2nd defendant on contrary supported the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the 1 st defendant had agreed to re-convey the property to the plaintiff. An agreement of sale dated 24.04.2009 was executed on same date on execution of the sale deed and according to the 2 nd defendant that the execution of a separate agreement of sale on the very same date would prove that the 1 st defendant had agreed to re-convey the property on receipt of the amount, which the 2 nd defendant owned. Defendants 3 and 4 also resisted the suit and contended that they are the bona fide purchaser of the property and therefore the sale deed dated 23.01.2010 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 cannot be interfered with. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 and A2 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 are examined. On behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B22 documents were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed for a local inspection and filed Exts.C1 and C1(a). The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Ext.A1 was intended only as a security document. In arriving at the said finding, the trial court also found that the plaintiff had entrusted the prior documents of the plaint scheduled property to the 1 st defendant and therefore, the case pleaded by the plaintiff cannot be a probable one. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Sub court, Sulthanbathery, dismissing the suit, the plaintiff filed A.S No.22 of 2013. The Additional District Court-II, Kalpetta, on the re- appreciation of the evidence came into conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that Ext.A1 was intended only as a security document. In doing so, relied on the evidence of the PW2 and the Ext.B3 and found that the case pleaded by the plaintiff was more probable and accordingly set aside Ext.A1 and Ext.B6 documents and decreed the suit and granted an injunction infavour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property. In doing so, relied on the evidence of the PW2 and the Ext.B3 and found that the case pleaded by the plaintiff was more probable and accordingly set aside Ext.A1 and Ext.B6 documents and decreed the suit and granted an injunction infavour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, decreeing the suit, the defendants 3 and 4 has come up with the present appeal. 4. Heard Shri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri.S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri.P.B.Subramanyan, appearing for the 1 st respondent/plaintiff. 5. Shri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court is perverse, inasmuch as the First Appellate Court relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to hold that Ext.A1 is only a security document. According to the learned Senior Counsel, during the cross examination of PW1/the plaintiff, she had categorically admitted that, she had signed the documents before the Sub Registry Office after knowing fully well the contents thereof. She had no case that the 2 nd defendant had repaid the amount as agreed in Ext.B3 to the 1 st defendant. Even otherwise, the First Appellate Court could not have read Ext.A1 and Ext.B3 together. There is no whisper in Ext.B3 regarding a possible recoveyance of the plaint scheduled property by the 2 nd defendant to the 1 st defendant or to the plainti is also the specific case that, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is lacking in so far as whether the 2nd defendant had repaid the amount to the 1 st defendant as agreed under Ext.B3. When the 2 nd defendant was cross examined, the 2 nd defendant had deposed that though he was willing to repay the amount, the 1 st defendant refused to accept it. In the light of these categoric statements, the First Appellate Court could not have overturned the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. It is further contended that the remedy if any of the plaintiff was to seek specific performance of Ext.B3 agreement. In the light of these categoric statements, the First Appellate Court could not have overturned the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. It is further contended that the remedy if any of the plaintiff was to seek specific performance of Ext.B3 agreement. In support of his contentions relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Moideen , 2001 (1) KLT 183 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch, Ernakulam v. Niyas and another , 2021 (2) KHC 18 . 6. Per contra, Shri. S.V Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff would contend that the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence and had come to the conclusion that Ext.A1 is only intended to be a security document. It is the specific case of Shri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/ 1st respondent, that unless the findings of the First Appellate Court, is found to be perverse, this Court need not exercise its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the case pleaded by the plaintiff is more probable inasmuch as the value for which the property sold is highly on a lower side. It is further contended that the First Appellate Court was justified in relying on the evidence of PW2/the mediator, who had mediated the transaction between the defendants 1 and 2. It is further contended that in the light of Ext.B3 and also tested along with the evidence of DW1 and PW2, the First Appellate Court had rightly concluded that Ext.A1 was intended only as a security document. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ramlal and another v. Phagna and others , AIR 2006 SC 623 . Lastly, it is contented that going by the report of the Advocate Commission, it has come out that the defendants 3 and 4 had destroyed the property worth Rs.35,00,000/- and therefore, it is highly improper that the plaintiff would execute Ext.A1 document for a dismally low amount. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments referred by the Courts below and perused the records of case. 8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments referred by the Courts below and perused the records of case. 8. When the appeal was admitted to file, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:- ‘Whether the appellate court has gone wrong in granting the relief of permanent injunction against the appellants, who had unlike proved their absolute possession in the property on the strength of Exts.A1 and A2 Assignment Deeds?’ 9. The question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of the trial court and granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff, dehors the Sale Deed dated 23.01.2010. Going by the plaint averments, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff did not deny execution of Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is a registered document executed by the plaintiff knowing the contents fully. The oral testimony of PW1, assumes significance inasmuch as she had categorically admitted during cross examination that, she executed Ext.A1 after knowing contents of the documents. If that be so, it passes ones comprehension as to how the plaintiff could lead oral evidence to disprove the contents of Ext.A1. Section 92 of the EVIDENCE ACT , would stand as an embargo for the plaintiff in leading oral evidence contrary to the terms of the document. 10. Even assuming for argument sake that, the plaintiff is entitled to establish that Ext.A1 was intended only to act as a security document, the further question is, whether the quality of evidence adduced by plaintiff would enable her to sustain her claim. In support of her contention, the plaintiff examined PW2, the mediator, who had mediated the transaction between the defendants 1 and 2 and the 2 nd defendant himself was examined as DW1. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and DW1, inasmuch as they were interested witnesses. Therefore, this Court cannot but notice the fact that apart from PW1, PW2 and DW1, no independent evidence was let in by the plaintiff to prove her case. When the evidence of PW2 and DW1 are tested against the plaintiff’s own testimony in cross examination, it would destroy the edifice of the case pleaded by the plaintiff. 11. Therefore, this Court cannot but notice the fact that apart from PW1, PW2 and DW1, no independent evidence was let in by the plaintiff to prove her case. When the evidence of PW2 and DW1 are tested against the plaintiff’s own testimony in cross examination, it would destroy the edifice of the case pleaded by the plaintiff. 11. However, Shri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel, would point out that the execution of Ext.B3 is a strong indication that Ext.A1 was intended only as security document. On an anxious consideration of the aforesaid contention, this Court finds that there is no reference to the transaction between the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff and as regards the so called outcome of the mediation between the parties. If as pleaded by the plaintiff, the execution of Ext.A1 was intended only as a security document, either the plaintiff or the transaction between the 1 st defendant and the plainti been mentioned in Ext.B3. But on contrary, reading of Ext.B3 shows that it is a pure agreement of sale between the 1 st defendant and the 2 nd defendant. Of course, in Ext.B3 there is a reference that on payment of Rs.7,59,500/-, the 1 st defendant shall convey the property to the 2 nd defendant or any person nominated by the 2 nd defendant. In the considered view of this Court, that by itself will not suffice the cause pleaded by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to hold that by mere execution of Ext.B3, the case pleaded by the plaintiff that Ext.A1 sale deed is only intended as a security document but not as a sale deed. 12. It is further pertinent to mention that Ext.A1 is a registered document. In terms of Section 32 of the REGISTRATION ACT , there is a presumption attached to the validity of Ext.A1. In Prem Singh and others v. Birbal and others , (2006) 5 SCC 353 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the impact of a registered document and held that the execution of a registered document prima facie attaches a presumption regarding its execution. When the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applied along with the statement recorded in the oral testimony of PW1, the irresistible conclusion is that the plaintiff was well aware regarding the contents of Ext.A1 and she had consciously executed the sale. When the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applied along with the statement recorded in the oral testimony of PW1, the irresistible conclusion is that the plaintiff was well aware regarding the contents of Ext.A1 and she had consciously executed the sale. Still further, had the plaintiff entertained any doubt as regards the nature Ext.A1 document, she could have very well refrained from proceeding with the execution of the sale. However, despite these overwhelming facts, the plaintiff decided to proceed further and execute the document. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff could not have resiled from the contents of Ext.A1 and contend that it was only a security document. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court cannot sustain the findings of the First Appellate Court. Therefore, answering the question of law in favour of the appellants, this Court finds that the reversal of the judgment and decree in O.S No.216/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, reversing the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court-II, Kalpetta, in A.S No.22/2013 and restoring the judgment and decree in O.S No.216/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery.