Inside Court No. __ on Monday, the Supreme Court brought closure to a long-running property dispute from Kerala, setting aside a High Court remand that had reopened questions already settled by the trial court. The bench made it clear that a stray line in cross-examination cannot overturn the core facts of a case when the record tells a different story.
Background
The case arose from a 2008 agreement to sell nearly 78 acres of land in Malappuram district. Moideenkutty, the buyer, had paid ₹50 lakh as advance to Abraham George, the seller, under an agreement that expressly stated the land was free from liabilities.
Read also:- Supreme Court Settles Decades-Old Faridabad Land Auction Dispute, Clarifies Rights of Buyers During
Trouble began when the buyer discovered the land was mortgaged to a bank. According to the buyer, this crucial fact was never disclosed. Assurances followed, mediators came in, and even the sale price was reduced by ₹35 lakh. Still, the mortgage remained. Eventually, the cheque issued by the buyer was dishonoured, and the deal collapsed.
The buyer sued for refund of the advance. The trial court believed him, holding that the seller had suppressed the mortgage and directed refund with interest. The Kerala High Court, however, reversed this, relying heavily on one admission during cross-examination suggesting the buyer knew of the mortgage earlier, and sent the matter back to decide possible losses suffered by the seller.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court was plainly unconvinced. It noted that the High Court placed “undue emphasis” on a single sentence pulled out of context. The bench observed that the parties had not even met before early September 2008, making the theory of earlier knowledge “wholly untenable.”
Significantly, the seller had admitted that the written agreement did not mention the mortgage and that money received from the buyer was never used to clear bank dues. The bench also took note of a legal notice sent by the buyer alleging concealment, which the seller chose not to reply to.
“The conduct of reducing the sale price itself reflects that something was amiss,” the bench observed, pointing out that such a concession would hardly be made if everything had been above board. On the buyer’s failure to inspect original documents, the court said this was not unusual, adding that it is common practice for title deeds to be kept in bank lockers.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Foreign Banks’ Head Office Expense Deductions, Overrules Long
Decision
In the end, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s judgment was sound and required no interference. The High Court’s remand order was set aside, and the decree directing refund of the advance with interest was restored. The appeal was allowed, bringing the dispute to a close without any order on costs.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Abraham George
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5405 of 2023
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Property / Agreement to Sell Dispute)
Decision Date: 15 December 2025
