NALUPURAKKAL LEELA Vs. MEETHALE VEETIL BHAGYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba in OS No.228/2008 followed by those of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery in AS No.109/2011, the plaintiffs, who have been non-suited, have come up in Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for cancellation of Ext.A3 sale deed dated 20.04.2007. According to the plaintiffs, they had borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the brother of the defendant, for which the defendant had obtained a document by way of security. Further, according to them, they were made to believe that they were to execute a mortgage deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendant. It is alleged that they were taken to the Sub Registry and they were made to execute and register Ext.A3 sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said sale deed is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and falsehood.

(3.) The defendant contended that Ext.A3 is the result of an outright sale and that she purchased the property for valuable consideration. Initially, the plaint was filed by making an averment that the plaintiffs had borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the husband of the defendant. In the written statement, the defendant had contended that the relationship between her and her husband was not cordial and thereafter, it resulted in a divorce even 10 years prior to the execution of Ext.A3. Thereupon, the plaintiffs have amended the plaint by making an averment that the amount was borrowed from the brother of the defendant and not from her husband.