FLORA MARGARET Vs. A LAWRENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1997 given by X Additional City Civil Judge (Sri K. H. Malleshappa), Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 10457 of 1992 (Smt. Flora Margaret v A. Lawrence) dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in Nutshell are: that the plaintiff-appellant filed the above suit claiming decree for declaration declaring the release deed dated 29-11-1990 executed between the plaintiff and defendant to be null and void ab initio. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree in the nature of direction directing the defendant and other persons who are residing along with the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and on their failure to comply with the direction, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to evict the defendant and others residing in the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) THE plaintiff as per the allegations in the plaint asserted that she is the absolute owner in possession with title and enjoyment of the immoveable property bearing No. 365 situated at Pillanna Garden, Bangalore, measuring East to West 25 ft. and North to South 30 ft. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 4-7-1984. The plaintiff claims to be in actual possession of the same and paying taxes etc. According to the plaintiffs case, it was purchased by the plaintiff from her own funds. The plaintiffs further case is that thereafter she had constructed the house and occupied the suit schedule property, and later on it so happened that the landlord of the defendant started harassing the defendant and also filed a police complaint. The landlord of defendant prevailed upon the defendant to vacate the house in which the defendant, his uncle C. K. Albert, his wife c. K. Harry Edwin and his wife and children were living. Therefore they wanted shelter and requested the plaintiff to accommodate the defendant and those persons for short time and looking to the pitiable condition according to the plaintiff she had accommodated them in the suit schedule property on July 1990 along with the plaintiffs family. The plaintiffs case is that in October 1990 when the plaintiffs son's house had been renovated after having falling vacant and for want of accommodation the plaintiff and her family moved over to the house of the plaintiffs son. The plaintiff-appellant averred in the plaint that she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and alleged that it was the self acquired property of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs further case is that with ulterior motive of grabbing the property the defendant hatched criminal conspiracy arid on the pretext of obtaining signature for the sake of getting a loan for house construction required the plaintiff to put her signature to help the defendant to acquire loan and made the plaintiff affix her signature on the document which the defendant wanted the plaintiff to sign and even the plaintiff was not allowed to know the exact character of the document. The plaintiff relying on defendant's representation, in order to help him to get the loan signed the document which later on came to the plaintiffs knowledge to be the release deed dated 29-11-1990. The plaintiffs case is that her signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. So the release deed which is filed along with the plaint is null and void. The plaintiffs case is that when she had gone to the Municipal Office to pay tax, then correct facts came to the notice of the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to know that by playing fraud and misrepresentation her signatures were obtained on the document of different nature viz. , the release deed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was threatening her and her family members that by virtue of the said release deed Ex. P-16 he will sell away the schedule property. The plaintiff, as such, filed the suit and claimed the above mentioned reliefs in the suit.