R.VIMALA Vs. S.MANIVANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, dtd. 23/3/2018, made in O.S.No.99 of 2013. The appellants are the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration and consequential recovery of possession in respect of the suit property along with the mesne profits; the first plaintiff is an Indian Origin citizen of Malaysia; he is residing in Malaysia and doing business there; the second plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the first plaintiff and he is a permanent citizen of India and residing at Trichy; the second defendant is the son of the first defendant; the second plaintiff is well known to the first defendant's husband in connection with some trade union activities; after the death of the first defendant's husband, the second plaintiff introduced the second defendant to the first plaintiff at Malaysia and secured an employment for him at Malaysia; accordingly, the first plaintiff offered a job for the second defendant at Malaysia; the second defendant went to Malaysia in September 2005 and he was given with boarding and lodging at the house of the first plaintiff in Malaysia; when the second defendant was working under the first plaintiff, the second defendant requested the first plaintiff for financial assistance for taking a house on Othi at Trichy, which is the suit property; the defendants undertook to repay the loan amount given by the first plaintiff from his salary; the first plaintiff gave a loan of 40,000/- Malaysian Ringgit to the second defendant; after one month, the second defendant informed the first plaintiff that the suit house is being offered for sale and requested the first plaintiff to provide further 40,000/- Malaysian Ringgit in order to purchase the same; since the second defendant continued to work with the first plaintiff, the first plaintiff graciously provided the required funds; only because of that, he purchased the suit property in the name of his mother/first defendant, under the sale deed dtd. 14/7/2008; after purchase of the house, the defendants availed an additional loan of 20,000/- Malaysian Ringgit for undertaking renovation work.

(3.) The second defendant has filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant; according to the statement of the second defendant, his mother had executed a power document in favour of the second plaintiff only as a security for repayment of the loan borrowed by the second defendant from the first plaintiff; the second defendant was put under the illegal custody of the first plaintiff and he has seized his passport also; only in view of such a situation, the mother the first defendant executed a power document in favour of the second plaintiff; it was due to the undue influence and pressure given by the first plaintiff and she never agreed voluntarily to sell the suit property in favour of the first plaintiff; it is false to state that the defendants sought a short time to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the first plaintiff; the second defendant was working under the first plaintiff at Malaysia and was sending all his earnings to his mother; at the instance of the second plaintiff, the second defendant was employed under the first plaintiff from 2005 to September 2009; the amount borrowed by the second defendant from the first plaintiff was equivalent to Rs.2,50,000.00 (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) in Indian money; he has repaid Rs.1,25,000.00(Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand); despite that the first plaintiff refused to give passport and insisted him to give proper security; only under such a situation, the first defendant needed to execute the power of attorney in favour of the second plaintiff; it was said to the first defendant that her son would be permitted to return only if she executed the power document in favour of the second plaintiff; the plaintiffs colluded with each other and took advantage of the weakness of the defendants and got the sale deed executed in favour of the first plaintiff through the second plaintiff; the first plaintiff, being a Malaysian citizen, cannot acquire a property in India without proper sanction from the Reserve Bank of India; the first plaintiff has also violated the provision of Foreign Exchange Money Regulation Act; there is absolutely no necessity for the defendants to sell the suit property; the sale deed dtd. 9/2/2011 was a fraudulent one and it was obtained through undue influence and coercion; hence, the suit should be dismissed.