N.VAIDYANATHAN Vs. V.NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, dtd. 31/7/2018 made in O.S.No.141 of 2013.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff; the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare the sale deed dtd. 30/5/2011 bearing Document No.1460 of 2011 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Srirnagam executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant as null and void and to cancel the sale deed; he also sought the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dtd. 26/8/2011 cuted by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and for cancellation of the same along with a direction to remove all the constructions and hand over possession to the plaintiff; a relief of permanent injunction also prayed to restrain the second defendant for alienating the suit property; the suit property along with its larger extent measuring 4 acres was originally owned by V.Narayanasamy, he executed a settlement deed dtd. 2/2/2010 in favour of the plaintiff; the plaintiff leased out the same to a public trust where Aged persons were maintained; on 29/5/2011 at around midnight, seven people came to the residence at Tambaram claiming that they were police officials of Central Crime Branch, Trichy; they took the father of the plaintiff for interrogation in connection with a case filed against him; he was tortured and threatened by the police and later he was confined on 30/5/2011 at Room Nos.129 and 130 of Sangeetha Residency Hotel at Luz Corner, Mylapore Chennai; the plaintiff's mother gave a complaint against one J.Vaidyanathan, K.Vaithisubramanian and Ramajayam by email to the Commissioner of Police and Chief Minister's cell on 30/5/2011; they threatened the plaintiff's father about the sum Rs.50,00,000.00 obtained by him as per the direction of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12983 of 2010 in respect of the larger extent of the suit property and title deed; as they could not get the same from the plaintiff's father, they conducted illegal search in the plaintiff's house; during at course they found the title deeds of the suit property; then they coerced the plaintiff and his father to come to Trichy to execute a sale deed in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property; despite the plaintiff had examination on 30/5/2011, they did not heed to it; the plaintiff and his parents were kidnapped by the first defendant with the assistance of police and made them to execute the sale deed; the mother of the plaintiff was taken away to a different place and was confined there; the plaintiff was threatened by them that only if they execute the sale deed, they could see his mother; because of such coercion and threat, the sale deed was signed without receiving any consideration; the first defendant illegally evicted the trust which was housed in the suit property; the first defendant colluded with the second defendant and got another sale deed executed on 26/8/2011; hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit.

(3.) The first defendant resisted the suit by stating the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff for a valid consideration; there is no coercion or threat as alleged by the plaintiff; plaintiff's father was the Managing Director of a company by name M/s.Dhanush Technologies Ltd, Chennai; he was in requirement of financial assistance for his company; one Vaidyanathan and Vaithisubramanian supported the plaintiff's father in his business; Vaidyanathan mortgaged his property and raised funds for plaintiff's father and to enable him to discharge a loan availed by him; since the loan in respect of Vaidyanathan was not paid, the bank issued final notice and took possession of the property; a complaint was given in this connection by Vaidyanathan and Vaithisubramanian and a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2011; during enquiry, plaintiff's father voluntarily came forward to direct the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant in consideration of money owed by him to Vaidyanathan and that would amount to Rs.35,00,000.00.