Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.The 4th defendant filed a statement stating that the suit is not maintainable. The suit properties did not belong to the family of the defendants 4 to 7 and it belongs to him absolutely and he is the owner of the suit properties. As a owner, he has sold the suit property to the 15th defendant as per the sale deed for a valuable consideration and as a matter of fact, the sale in favour of the 15th defendant was, on the basis of the agreement of sale, executed in favour of the 15th defendant and the 15th defendant also filed O.S.No.47 of 1983 to enforce the said agreement and pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.47 of 1983, he executed in favour of the 15th defendant. He also contended that though the defendants 4 to 14 are the members of the joint family, the joint family does not own any property, much less the suit properties and therefore, the defendants 5 to 7 the children do not have any right or title or interest in the suit property and the family of the defendants 4 to 7 is also not a treading family. The 6th defendant is a Broker in Art Silk and he gets commission for the orders, he procured from the customers and he was living with his wife and children separately and the defendants 4, 5 and 7 are the children of the 4th defendant and they are not liable to discharge the debts incurred by the 6th defendant. However, the creditors to the 6th defendant threatened to foist a criminal case against all the members of the family, including womenfolks and under such threat and also at the instance of the 2nd defendant, who is also one of the creditors of the 6th defendant, the defendants 4 to 7 were forced to execute a registered composition trust deed and therefore, the said composition trust deed was not executed voluntarily by the defendants 4, 5 and 7 and the recitals in the composition trust deed are also false and as stated supra, the suit properties are not the joint family properties and they are separate properties of the 4th defendant and none of the creditors consented for the execution of the composition trust deed and he has also disputed the liability of the 6th defendant to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- payable to the creditors as claimed in the plaint.

10.The 5th defendant filed a separate statement admitting the relationship stating that the defendants 5 to 7 are the children of the 4th defendant and 11th defendant. But denied the allegation that the 4th defendants is the father of the defendants 13 and 14 and he also admitted that the defendants 8 and 9 are his sons. But denied the allegation that the 6th defendant was doing joint family business on behalf of the family and its members. He also stated that after the marriage of the children of the 4th defendant, they started living separately and they were doing independent business and the 5th defendant was working in a private company and he has nothing to do with the business of the 6th defendant. He also denied the allegation that the 6th defendant was having business and was collecting amount and utilized the same for the benefit of the joint family consisting of the defendants 4 to 14. He also denied the allegation that the defendants 4 to 7 came forward to discharge the amount payable by the 6th defendant and stated that the defendants 1 to 3 and others, threatened the defendants 4 to 7 of several criminal prosecution and the defendants 4 to 7 executed a composition trust deed under compulsion and threat and therefore, the composition trust deed is not valid and it is null and void. He also denied the allegation that pursuant to composition trust deed on 07.04.1982, the defendants 1 to 3 executed an agreement of sale on 07.04.1982 in favour of the plaintiff and received advance of Rs.30,000/-. He also alleged that the plaintiff was never put in possession of the suit properties and that was stated only for the purpose of getting order of injunction in O.S.No.693 of 1982. He also contended that the defendants 4 to 7 executed a cancellation deed, dated on 22.05.1982 and revoked all the powers conferred on the defendants 1 to 3. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

11.The 10th defendant filed a statement stating that the 10th defendant is not bound by the composition trust deed and the composition trust deed was not for the benefit of the 10th defendant and therefore, no decree can be passed against the 10th defendant.

12.The Court Guardian for the 14th defendant also filed a statement to the same effect.

13.The 15th defendant filed a statement denying the allegation that the defendants 4 to 8 are the original owners of the suit property and claimed that the 4th defendant alone was the owner of the suit properties and the defendants 13 and 14 are not the children of the 4th defendant and the defendants 4 to 14 are the members of joint family of which the 4th defendant was the eldest member and the 6th defendant was not doing any joint family business and the 5th defendant was only a broker. He also denied the allegation made in para 5 of the plaint that the 6th defendant was doing business on behalf of the joint family members. He contended that the 6th defendant was doing business and incurred some debts and the creators realized that the 6th defendant has no property to discharge the loan payable by him and therefore, threatened the defendants 4 to 7 that they would give police complaint against all of them and arrest them and put behind the bars and under such threat, undue influence and coercion, got the composition trust deed, dated 07.02.1982 and that deed was not valid document and the defendants 1 to 3 cannot claim any right under the said document and they have no right to enter into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 07.04.1982 and as a matter of fact, an agreement of sale said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff on 07.04.1982, the plaintiff was not put in possession of the suit properties and other properties.

31.The trial court, therefore, held that Ex.A2 the composition trust deed, dated 07.02.1982 was executed by the family members, namely, the owner, borrower and the children of the owner and they have no right to cancel the said document and therefore, the cancellation of the composition trust deed, dated 22.05.1982 (Ex.A24) is not a valid document and the composition trust deed is binding on the owner/borrower and the children of the owner and the family members and Exs.A42 to A76 would prove that the borrower signed in those documents and he failed to repay the amount to those persons and therefore, the creditors approached the defendants 4, 5 and 7, namely the owner and his children to discharge the loan payable by the borrower and therefore, the Trustees were appointed by the owner, his children and the borrower by executing the composition trust deed and Ex.A19 would also prove that the creditors agreed to abide by the decision of the Trustees and pursuant to that, the owner, his children and the borrower executed the composition trust deed on 07.02.1982 in favour of the trustees to discharge the loan payable by the borrower and later, with an intention to defraud the trustees and creditors, the owner, his children and the borrower executed the cancellation deed (Ex.B24) and therefore, Ex.B24 cancellation deed has no legal sanctity.