Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The defendants in OS No. 24/84 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad, are the appellants in this appeal. A preliminary decree for redemption of anomalous mortgage of a double storeyed building bearing No. 4-3-3 (old) and 3-7-68 (new) situated in Adilabad (hereinafter called as 'Amba Bhavan') and the adjoining plot as also a decree for cancellation of the decree passed in OS No. 49/78 have been passed against them.

2. This appeal shall govern also the disposal of the appeal AS 2702/89 arising out of OS 11/84 and the appeal AS 2703/89 arising out of OS 5/89 because all the three suits have been disposed by the common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Adilabad. In OS No. 5/89, suit of the 2nd defendant for permanent injunction has been dismissed and in OS No. 11/89, suit of the 3rd defendant for specific performance of the contract of the upper storey of Amba Bhavan has been dismissed.

ing the sale deed, Ex. B-3, of the ground floor of Amba Bhavan. it is further alleged that on 7-8-1978, the 1st defendany got an agreement to sell the 1st floor of Amba Bhavan (Ex. Bl) executed by the 1st plaintiff and her husband in favour of his son -- 3rd defendant -- to secure the interest and the loan amount of Rs.40,000/ - showing wrongly the consideration as Rs.35,000/- and payment of advance as Rs.33,000/-, but without making any payment to them. The 1st plaintiff and her husband needed an amount of Rs.7,000/- for their hotel business and when approached for loan, the 1st defendant agreed to pay Rs.7,000/- to them on their executing a sale deed of their land measuring 35 ft. X 60 ft. "adjoining to Amba Bhavan (in short the suit land) in favour of his wife -- the 2nd defendant -- and again succeeded in obtaining a registered sale deed Ex. B2 of the suit land in favour of the 2nd defendant or 30-3-1980. The 1st defendant being a creditor was in dominating position and by practising undue influence and fraud, he succeeded in obtaining the agreement to sell Ex. A1, the sale deed Ex. B3, the agreement to sell Ex. Bl and the sale deed Ex. B2, though the 1st plaintiff and her husband K. Ramankutty alias Lingam had mortgaged Amba Bhavan and the suit land to the 1st defendant for a total loan amount of Rs. 47,000/- on interest at the rate of 18% per annum and handed over the possession of Amba Bhavan and the suit land for a period of 5 years and it was agreed that after completion of 5 years the usufruct of the, Amba Bhavan would be adjusted against the loan amount and interest and after payment of the remaining amount, if any, the 1st defendant would re-deliver Amba Bhavan and the suit land to them. The value of Amba Bhavan at the relevant time was Rupees 3,00,000/- and the value of the suit land was Rs. 25,000/- and, therefore, all the aforesaid agreements and sale deeds are unconscionable and hence they are void. In the meantime, the 3rd defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 1st plaintiff and her husband K. Ramankutty alias Lingam bearing No. OS 49/78 and obtained their signatures on blank papers and blank Vakalat and misrepresented that the suit had been filed only to restrain them for a period of 5 years from disturbing his possession in the balcony of the 1st floor of Amba Bhavan and, therefore, they did not contest the suit for there was no dispute for a period of 5 years and thus the 3rd defendant by practising fraud had obtained a decree for permanent injunction which is void. The defendants when called upon to do the accounts refused to do so and instead of that the 2nd defendant filed a suit bearing No. 5/89 for permanent mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs making false allegations that they have illegally opened a door in the common wall. Similarly, the 3rd defendant instituted a suit for specific performance on the strength of the agreement to sell Ex. Bl falsely alleging that the plaintiff have failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for redemption of the mortgage, for accounts and redelivery of possession as also for setting aside or cancellation of the decree of permanent injunction passed in OS No. 49/78.

6. The defendants through their joint written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs. They have denied that the loan of Rs.40,000/- was advanced by the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff and her husband on interest at the rate of 18% per annum or they had created usufructuary mortgage. They have pleaded that the agreement to sell (Ex. Al) is a fabricated document. The 1st plaintiff-respondent has no right title or interest in Amba Bhavan or the suit land. Her husband had voluntarily sold the ground floor of Amba Bhavan for a valid consideration of Rs. 40,000/- through registered sale deed (Ex. B3)-and handed its vacant possession to the defendant No. 1. He had voluntarily entered into an agreement to sell the 1st floor of Amba Bhavan for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/ - to the 3rd defendant after receiving an advance of Rs.33,000/- and had agreed to execute the sale deed after a period of 5 years in his favour and handed over vacant possession of the 1st floor of Amba Bhavan in pursuance of the agreement to sell, Ex. B-l. The 1st plaintiff and her husband started demanding the balance amount of consideration "of Rs. 2,000/- immediately thereafter and tried to disturb the possession of the balcony of the 1st floor of Amba Bhavan. Therefore, he had filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 49/78 against them' in which they filed written statement admitting the claim of the 3rd defendant whereupon a decree for permanent injunction had been passed in that suit against them. They further denied that the agreement to sell, Ex. B-l, was obtained against the alleged amount of interest. They further denied that the 1st defendant had advanced a loan of Rs.7,000/- on 30-3-1980, and had obtained a sale deed Ex. B-2 in favour of the 2nd defendant. They pleaded that K. Raman-kutty alias Lingam voluntarily executed the sale deed Ex. B-2 in favour of the 2nd defendant for a valid consideration of Rs.7,000/- and had handed over its possession to her. The husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the remaining plantiffs namely K. Ramankutty alias Lingam is alive and he was the exclusive owner of Amba Bhavan and the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiffs have no cause of action in the suit. They also pleaded that the 4th defendant is not necessary or proper party to the suit and, therefore, the suit is bad for misjoinder of the party. They also pleaded that the suit is not within limitation and the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. They pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8. The 2nd defendant also filed a suit OS No. 5/89 for permanent mandatory injunction against the 1st plaintiff alleging that she is trying to interfere with her possession over the suit land and had broken the common wall and had fixed a door in it and, therefore, she is entitled for a permanent mandatory injunction for removal of the door and construction of the broken wall.

9. The plaintiffs in the aforementioned suits bearing OS 11/84 and 5/89 filed written statements denying the claim of the 2nd and the 3rd defendants in their respective suits and took almost similar pleas as defence which had been taken by them in their suit OS 24/84.