JAYACHANDRAN Vs. VIJAYALESKHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in OS 250/2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara, is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

(2.) The 1st plaintiff is the wife of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff as his next friend on the ground that he is of unsound mind. The suit is for declaration and consequential injunction. The plaint schedule properties belong to the 2nd plaintiff which he obtained as per Ext.A3 partition deed No.1373/1997. As per the plaint averments, the 2nd plaintiff is suffering from unsoundness of mind since 15/9/1992. He was treated in different hospitals such as Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Medical College hospital, Alappuzha, Nakkada hospital, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla and St.Gregorious hospital, Parumala. The 2nd plaintiff's parents died in the year 1992 and 1994 respectively and their death aggravated his mental condition. Thereafter his condition became worse and he became violent towards the 1st plaintiff on several occasions. Because of his mental condition, he could not even show love and affection towards his wife and children and as a result of which they left the 2nd plaintiff and started residing at her paternal home. Taking advantage of the illness of the 2nd plaintiff and the absence of the 1st plaintiff along with him, the defendant colluded with others and fraudulently created Ext.A5(B7) sale deed No.1146/1999 of Keerikkad Sub Registry in respect of plaint B scheduled property. The property situated by the side of Harippad - Kayamkulam road. The total consideration for the entire 35 cents of plaint schedule property shown in the document was Rs.35,000.00. Though the said property is situated within the limits of Cheppad Sub Registrar office, the document was registered at Keerikkad Sub Registrar's office (SRO). Though 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Keerikkad SRO was shown as security property, the said SRO had no jurisdiction to execute the above sale deed. The Sub Registrar, Keerikkad, has not conducted proper enquiry before permitting registration of the sale deed. The 1st plaintiff filed a suit as OS.456/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam for maintenance for herself and children and obtained an order of attachment of the plaint A scheduled property with the intention to secure the said property from alienation. Alleging that the defendant is taking hasty steps to alienate the 'B' schedule property, she preferred the present suit seeking declaration that Ext.A5 sale deed No.1146/1999 of Keerikkad Sub Registry executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the defendant is null and void and also for a consequential injunction against the defendant.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contending that the 2nd plaintiff was not suffering from any mental illness and also that he had executed the sale deed after receiving valid consideration. It was also contended that, in the family partition the 2nd plaintiff joined as a party and further contended that the 1st plaintiff herself filed a suit against the 2nd plaintiff in his personal capacity. Therefore, according to the defendant, there is no merit in the argument that the 2nd plaintiff was suffering from any kind of mental illness. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the suit.