(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 289 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, North Parur are the appellants in this appeal.
(2.) O.S. No. 289 of 1992 is a suit instituted for setting aside the sale deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 5.12.1990 in respect of the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction. The plaint schedule property and the building therein belong to the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the adopted son of the first plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, they are residing in the building in the plaint schedule property and that after the death of the husband of the first plaintiff, she was mentally depressed and was not having a steady and disposable state of mind. It is also their case that when the second plaintiff came to know that the defendants have obtained some documents from the first plaintiff by misrepresenting facts and exercising undue influence, he had to publish a notice in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 29th October, 1990 that in view of the state of mind of the first plaintiff, documents, if any, executed by the first plaintiff will not bind him and the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, despite such a public notice, on 5.12.1990, defendants 1 and 2 got executed from the first plaintiff the sale deed sought to be set aside. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit is that the document obtained by defendants 1 and 2 from the first plaintiff is vitiated for want of steady and disposable state of mind for the first plaintiff to execute a document of that nature, want of consideration, undue influence, fraud etc.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that they obtained the sale deed referred to in the suit paying adequate consideration and with the best of intentions and that the said document is not vitiated in any manner whatsoever. According to them, they have paid to the first plaintiff a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of sale consideration for the property.