JANARDHANAN MOOPIL Vs. PRABHAKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant Plaintiff instituted the suit for setting aside Ext. A -1 the original of which is Ext. B -6 sale deed, and also Ext. A -2 the original of which is Ext. B -7 sale deed, and for consequential reliefs. Trial Court dismissed the suit Plaintiff preferred A.S. 46 of 1986 before the lower appellate Court which also was dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF had 7 cents and 125 sq. links of land in an important place in Quilon town. There was a bunk shop in the said property in which the first Defendant who is the nephew of the Plaintiff was conducting business. Plaintiff had raised a loan hypothecating the said property to the Urban Co -operative Bank. He had made part payments. According to the Plaintiff, the first, Defendant undertook to discharge the balance amount on the Plaintiff executing a hypothecation with respect to the plaint schedule property (which is half a cent in the said 7 cents and 125 sq. links), in favor of the first Defendant, and the first Defendant agreed to surrender possession of the bunk and to construct a new bunk in the plaint" schedule property. Plaintiff further alleged that, pursuant to the same he had to execute Ext. B -6 on the representation by Defendants 1 to 3. About one month before the institution of the suit the Plaintiff came to know that the first Defendant was taking steps to assign the property to the 4th Defendant; feeling suspicious about the sarpe he took the attested copy of the document. Then only he learnt that what he executed was a sale deed. He would further allege that the balance Rs. 1,500 due to the Urban Bank was not paid by the first Defendant as represented by him.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant contended that in view of the fact that the' balance loan amount due to the Urban Bank remained unpaid, Ext. B -6 is not supported by consideration and on that ground itself the document is void. Learned Counsel also contended that the nonpayment of the consideration would also support the case of the Plaintiff that Ext. B -6 is vitiated by fraud and according to him, once it is found that Ext. B -6 is vitiated by fraud, Ext. B -7 executed by the first Defendant in favour of the 4th Defendant too will also become invalid.