RACHEL PUNNEN Vs. DESRAJ SONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Kottayam in O.S.No.391/2011 followed by those of the IV Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S.No.245/2012, the plaintiff in the suit has come up in the Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for declaration that document No.454/93 of the Kottayam Sub Registry Office obtained by the defendant is not valid and that the defendant has never obtained possession of the plaint schedule item No.1, and for the cancellation of the said sale deed. It has also been prayed that even if the defendant had any right over the property, the same was lost due to adverse possession and limitation. A decree of perpetual injunction against trespass has also been sought for. According to the plaintiff, she had no acquaintance with the defendant and that the husband of the plaintiff forcibly took her to the Sub Registry Office under threat to her life and made her to sign a document about which, she was told that it was a document for creating a mortgage for Rs. 1,50,000/- borrowed by him from the defendant and that the husband of the plaintiff had undertaken that he would settle the liability. Even after the sale deed, the property was not taken possession of by the defendant, and the plaintiff continued to possess and enjoy the property. It is alleged that on 21.06.2005, the defendant and his agents came to the residence of the plaintiff and wanted to enter the property for measuring out the property and to identify the same. It was then only the plaintiff could realise that the document got executed from her was a sale deed. According to the plaintiff, the document was executed without her consent and by exercising coercion, threat, violence and undue influence by her husband on her. According to the plaintiff, she has not received any amount by way of consideration and therefore, the document is void.

(3.) The defendant contended that it was an outright sale and that he had purchased the property for a total consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/- paid by him to the plaintiff through an account payee cheque. According to the defendant, it was at the instance of the plaintiff that a lesser amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was shown in the sale deed as consideration and in fact, he had paid an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as consideration.