judgment in Moosa v. Moideen [2001 (1) KLT 183] , a learned Single Judge of this Court had in an almost similar circumstance, held that when there is a contention that there was an agreement for reconveyance, the suit should necessarily be one for specific performance of that agreement to reconvey and a suit of this nature will not be maintainable. That was also a case where a suit had been filed for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants was only executed as security. The trial court and the First Appellate Court had decreed the suit. However, in the second appeal, this Court held that the suit, as filed, would not be maintainable, and the prayer should have been for specific performance of the agreement for reconveyance. The facts are similar, and the dictum laid down in the judgment in Moosa (supra) would apply squarely. A Division Bench of this Court in State Bank of Idia, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Ernakulam v. Niyas & Anr. [2021 (2) KLT 172] had occasion to consider a case where there was an execution of a sale deed with a condition for reconveyance. The prayer in that suit was for a declaration that the sale deed was a sham document. This Court held that the appropriate remedy is to sue for the execution of the deed for reconveyance of the property as in the case of a suit for specific performance. The case in this second appeal is not different since
