B DHARMICHAND Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, dated 05.06.2017, partly decreeing the suit directing the defendant to refund to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the suit and 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation with costs and dismissing the suit with respect to the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement.

(2.) The plaint averments are as follows :

(3.) The defendant in her written statement denied the execution of sale agreement and receipt of advance amount as false. The plaintiff's close relative Mr.Bhawarlal is running a money lending business in a portion of the ground floor of the suit property whereas the defendant is residing in the upstairs. The defendant is an illiterate. She approached the said Bhawarlal seeking finance assistance to build an upstairs portion. In order to provide loan the said Bhawarlal sought mortgage of the suit property. Hence the defendant went to the Sub-Registrar Officer to register only a mortgage deed in favour of the said Bhawarlal. But it is now understood that a sale agreement was entered into by her and the plaintiff. The defendant at no point of time wanted the suit property to be sold to anyone. The alleged agreement of sale is the fraud played upon by the defendant and hence the sale agreement is null and void in the eye of law. The defendant received Rs.2,50,000/- through two cheques and she is liable to pay that amount to the plaintiff. The defendant has been paying interest for the said loan amount and the said Bhawarlal does not issue any receipt for the same. The alleged sale agreement is an invalid document that was executed by no intention to act upon it. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek the discretionary relief.