KALLIYANIKUTTY D/O. CHAMAKKALA KUMARIPPILLY KAMALAKSHY AMMA ANNANADU DESOM, KALLUR, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK Vs. NARAYANAN, S/O. VANNADIYIL RAMAPOTHUVAL PALLIKKAL DESOM, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was one for a declaration that Ext.A3 sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant lacks consideration and that it is vitiated by coercion. There was also a prayer to set aside Ext.A3 sale deed and to recover possession of the property scheduled therein from the defendant with mesne profits and interest. The plaint schedule property of extent 18 cents in Survey No. 101 of Melur Village of Mukundapuram Taluk belonged to the plaintiff under Ext.A1 sale deed. The plaintiff contended that a bag containing blank signed stamp papers was lost by her husband during travel which was misutilised by the defendant to create a document. The document saddled liability in the husband of the plaintiff on the basis of which the defendant threatened with the aid of the police and politicians. The husband of the plaintiff and his brother were constantly harassed resulting in the execution of Ext.A3 sale deed which was bereft of consideration and vitiated by coercion.

(2.) The defendant contended that he along with his brother and the husband of the plaintiff were conducting a hotel business and that a sum of Rs. 3,12,000.00 was due to him on that count. It is that liability that was reflected in the document dated 17.3.1989 styled as an 'agreement' and was not by misusing blank signed stamp papers. The matter was talked over with the husband of the plaintiff and eventually Ext.A3 sale deed was got executed from the plaintiff. The value of the property conveyed was assessed at Rs. 75,000.00 out of the sum of Rs. 3,12,000.00 due even though the sale consideration was recited as Rs. 25,000.00 in Ext.A3 sale deed. It was also pointed out that the defendant had since transferred the property to another and that the suit filed for the reliefs is frivolous and vexatious.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit with compensatory costs of Rs. 2,000.00 against which the plaintiff has filed this Appeal Suit. We heard Mr. S.M. Prasanth, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P.Martin Jose, Advocate for the respondent.