BHUPENDRAKUMAR R PANKLI Vs. M K LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal is by defendants 3 and 4. The second appeal was preferred by the first defendant, who is now represented by his legal heirs, appellants 2 to 7. Respondents 1 to 4 in that appeal are, respectively the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 in the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff may be summarised as follows: The plaintiff is the second wife of one Alagappa Chettiar and out of that wedlock she had two sons and one daughter. On account of misunderstanding between her husband and her mother Kannammal, she left her husband and came to Madras with their children in the year 1951 and resided at No.1. Shanmugha Mudali Street, Royapettah, Madras, which house belonged to her mother. She used to work as a musician and film artiste. Her children also contributed to the family expenses as film artistes. When her mother was alive, the first defendant, who was then manager of a Cinema theatre, became known to the plaintiff's mother and was frequenting her residence. Later he became unemployed. Finding that the plaintiff was well off, he wormed himself into her confidence and affection; representing that there was misunderstanding between him and his wife, he took permanent residence with the plaintiff in the year 1959. The plaintiff was not acquainted with English language and was quite ignorant of business affairs and hence she allowed him to manage all her affairs and entrusted to him all her papers and monies. The first defendant used to obtain her signatures either in blank or with some written matter or typewritten matter representing that they were required in connection with her affairs. The plaintiff used to sign whenever she was asked to do so, believing his representations. She even allowed him to represent herself as her husband in all dealings with the outside world since he persuaded her that such a status would command respect. On 6-5-1959 the plaintiff's mother settled her property at No.1, Shanmuga Mudali Street, Royapettah, Madras, on the plaintiff absolutely under a settlement deed. The first defendant represented that there was an attractive property at Gandhinagar, viz., the suit property, which had been allotted to one Pundarikshakha Naidu by the Madras Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. and that the transfer of the same could be got in plaintiff's favour if she could pay Rs. 15,000/- to the said Naidu and Rs. 14,900/- to the said Society. The first defendant further persuaded the plaintiff to borrow a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on mortgaging the property at No.1, Shanmuga Mudali Street, Royapettah, Madras, to the Purasawalkam Saswatha Sangha Nidhi and thus she executed a mortgage deed on 24-6-1959. A sum of Rs. 2,001/- was paid by cash to the said Naidu and subsequently a cheque for Rs. 12,999/- was issued by the plaintiff in his favour. There was some litigation between the said Naidu and the plaintiff, which was ultimately compromised. As per the compromise she paid the balance amount to the society. As a result of such payment, the plaintiff became a member of the society and entered into a hire purchase agreement with the society on 19-4-1961. As per the agreement, she was to get a conveyance executed in her favour or in favour of her nominee by the said society, which is now represented by the second defendant.

(3.) After payment of Rs. 45,030-82 in full discharge of all her liabilities under the hire purchase agreement to the society, she became entitled to a conveyance. The entire consideration was met from her own earnings and those of her children. The plaintiff had been residing in the suit premises from 1961 along with her children and the first defendant. Subsequently the first defendant's father-in-law brought the first defendant's wife and children to the suit premises and out of compassion, the plaintiff did not object to it. The first defendant had conceived a fraudulent intention to somehow obtain the transfer of the suit property in his name with a view to appropriate it for himself exclusively. The plaintiff learnt later that with this end in view, he had made an application even as early as May 1971 to the Corporation of Madras for mutation of the suit property in his name in the assessment register, in which the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid the property tax all along and is even now continuing to pay the same. The first defendant appears to have obtained the plaintiff's signature to a letter or used a blank paper signed by her for a request to the second respondent to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the first defendant as her nominee without her knowledge. It appears that the said request letter is dated 12-7-1971. On the same day D. 1 obtained a conveyance in his favour from the second defendant. It appears also that the sale deed was presented before the Registrar on 12-7-1971 and registered on 19-7-1971. The plaintiff became aware of the above fraudulent acts of the first defendant only towards the end of 1972, when she observed some person calling at the plaintiff's residence on two occasions and being closesed with the first defendant. On the last occasion when the said person came, from the manner in which he was talking to the first defendant, the plaintiff understood that he was a money lender and that he came to make a demand for payment towards loan. She enquired with the first defendant, but the latter gave an evasive reply. This aroused her suspicion that he would have borrowed money by mortgaging the suit property and started enquiring the second defendant to find out whether there was any encumbrance on the suit property. In January 1973 she was surprised and shocked to learn from the second defendant that a conveyance deed had been executed in favour of the first defendant on the strength of an authorisation by her. On 1-2-1972 the plaintiff made an application for a copy of the conveyance and thus became aware of the fraud committed by the first defendant. This caused estrangement between the first defendant and the plaintiff.