LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-189

VANAJAKSHI AMMAL Vs. RANIAMMAL

Decided On March 18, 2003
VANAJAKSHI AMMAL Appellant
V/S
RANIAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in the suit are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent herein. She instituted the suit for cancellation and to set aside the document dated 27.7.1977 or in the alternative, for declaration that the document should be treated as a simple mortgage and not a sale deed, for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property in case the plaintiff is not found to be in possession of the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) A reading of the prayers in the plaint clearly shows that many reliefs, which are alternative or contradictory to each other, are claimed by the plaintiff in the suit and the case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the suit property measuring 1.70 acres in Survey No.287, Chokkanallur village and she has sunk a well at the cost of Rs.10,000/- by raising loans. She has stated that she also obtained mortgage loan from Land Development Bank and other sources and installed an oil engine. She has stated that she replaced the oil engine with an electric motor at the cost of Rs.5,000/- and she also constructed a shed to locate the motor pump set. She has stated that she raised a coconut garden and she spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- for sinking a well, installing the motor pump set and constructing the shed. It is stated that she raised a loan from Poonamallee Co-operative Bank to the extent of Rs.7,000/- in 1975 and she also raised manure loan from Kolapancheri Co-operative Society. She has stated that she borrowed loans from one Gajendra Naidu and also from other relatives for improving the land. It is stated that she required some money for raising crops and the said Gajendra Naidu pressed for repayment of his loan and therefore she was forced to raise a loan by mortgaging her property. It is stated that the well has copious supply of water which is more than what is required for irrigating her 1.70 acres of land and also the poramboke land under the occupation of the plaintiff and her husband. She has stated that the second defendant offered to advance money to discharge the loans obtained by the plaintiff and she bona fide believed and agreed to mortgage the suit property for a loan of Rs.20,000/- and executed a document on 27.7.1977. According to her, the document was brought out by the second defendant with the active assistance of Ramamoorthy, Viswanathan Velu and Balaraman and the plaintiff was not aware of the contents of the document as the document was not read over to her and she bona fide believed that the document to be a mortgage deed. She has stated that she is an illiterate lady and her husband was addicted to drinks. She has stated that taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff's husband and other circumstances, the second defendant played a fraud upon the plaintiff to execute the document representing the same to be a mortgage deed and tempted the plaintiff's husband to attest the document without informing the contents of the document though it was a sale deed for the sale of suit property. She has stated that some other documents were also brought out and the first defendant was not present at the time of execution of document or at the time of registration. It is stated that money was not paid to the plaintiff, but it was represented by the second defendant that he would discharge the debts of the plaintiff. It is her case that by way of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, the sale deed for the sale of suit property was obtained by the defendants. Her case is that she is in possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit is filed for the reliefs as stated earlier.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement have denied all the averments made in the plaint. Their case is that the plaintiff sold the suit property for consideration and the loans covered in the deed were discharged. It is stated that the first defendant paid a sum of Rs.15,026/- in cash to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the deed and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid for the right to cultivate 30 cents of poramboke land and the plaintiff deposited the moneys in bank and the first defendant was put in possession of the property. The case of the defendants is that the sale is a true, valid and bona fide one and supported by consideration and the sale deed was read over to the plaintiff and her husband attested the sale deed before the Sub Registrar of Assurances. The defendants have denied that fraud has been committed on the plaintiff and her husband. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff and her husband were fully aware of the nature of transaction in question and the plaintiff executed the deed of sale with full knowledge.