Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It is further contended that because of the fiduciary capacity of the defendant No. 1 the plaintiffs husband was in a dominant position exploiting her predicament and he has taken advantage of her innocence and on account of undue influence executed by him, she has put her signature to number of documents, even to blank papers as he was representing that the same are required for securing the allotment of site in her favour. So the defendant No. 1 contended that the alleged agreement of sale dated 13.7.1980 is an outcome of the plaintiff's husband in exerting undue influence on her and coersion to put her signature to various letters and documents. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 was not entitled to sell the site allotted in her favour by the society for a period of 10 years and she is also not entitled to sell any site that may be allotted in her favour by BDA and it is also forbidden under the provisions of section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act and also under section 15, 16, 18 and 23 of the Contract Act. It is further contended that the plaintiff husband has played fraud on the 1 st defendant in securing her signature to number of documents and also sometimes the blank papers falsely representing that are required to be presented to the BDA for securing allotment. It is further contended that the allotment of site No. 378 had been already allotted in favour of somebody else and on account of certain litigation the said site was not available for allotment, as such the 1 st defendant had to make request / representation to defendant No. 3 for allotment of different site of any dimensions as the site allotted bearing No. 378 is not available. The defendant No. 3 considering the pitiable condition of defendant No. 1 for having spent allotment of amount allotted the site bearing No. 351, Banashankari III Stage, IV phase, 7 th block, Bangalore, by resolution dated 8/5/1995. The defendant No. 1 has paid the amount payable in that regard the documents are kept with the plaintiff's husband as a safety measure and the contrary averments made that the plaintiff's husband has paid the amount are all false. The 1 st defendant came to know the fraudulent and malafide intention of the plaintiff and her husband as to how they are playing fraud on her and therefore she has appointed the 2 nd defendant as her attorney by executing a revisable Power of Attorney in respect of the site allotted in her favour. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 through her agent, i.e., defendant No. 2 approached defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 3 has issued possession certificate dated 1/3/1999 and the defendant No. 1 has been put in physical possession of the site No.351 allotted in her favour. It is further contended that the entire layout is transferred to BBMP for its demonstration and the Khatha in respect of the above referred site number entered in the name of defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 herself paying taxes to the BBMP in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the plaintiff claiming to be in alleged possession of site No. 42 demarcated in Sy.No. 25/1 and 33/6 of Marenahalli village on the fabricated agreement of sale now falsely claiming to be the possession of site No. 351 allotted in favour of defendant No. 1. It is further contended that the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 or any person acting on her behalf from interfering with the alleged possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that pursuant to the issuance of possession certificate in respect of the suit schedule property the defendant No. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same and at no point of time the plaintiff has come into possession of the said site. It is further contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the alleged agreement of sale dated 13/7/1980 as it is the outcome of undue influence, mis-representation, coersion and fraud played by the plaintiff and her husband and it is opposed to the provisions of rights relating allotment of sites by the society and opposed to public policy. As such the above referred agreement of sale is void and unenforceable .

34. The document Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 copies of requisition letters relied by the plaintiff are sent in the name of defendant No. 1 Venkatamma. There is no mention in Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 that plaintiff Rathnamma herself given this letter to the BDA authorities seeking for alternative site. All these requisition letters under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 were in the name of defendant No. 1.

35. Since in this suit for specific performance the plaintiff has relied upon the main document Ex.P4 agreement of sale dated 13.7.1980, this document is the main document to decide whether there exists valid and concluded contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. In this suit in order to prove the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff has examined her General Power of Attorney holder PW1 and one attesting witness of this document Ex.P4 is examined as PW2. PW2 attesting witness who is the best witness to say about the document Ex.P4 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale dated 13.7.1980 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to sell the site bearing No. 42 situated at Marenahalli village which was allotted by Koramashettara Housing Building Co- operative Society. PW2 has deposed that this document Ex.P4 was executed on 13.7.1980 by the 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff in his presence and he has affixed his signature on Ex.P4. PW2 has not only identified his signature which his marked at Ex.P4(a) but also identified the signature and thumb impression of defendant No. 1 which are marked at Ex.P4(b), Ex.P4(c), Ex.P4(e), Ex.P4(f). PW2 has also identified the signature of another consenting witness Manjunath which is marked at Ex.P4(d). The chief-examination verison of PW2 who is attesting witness to the document Ex.P4 is remained unchallenged as the learned counsel for the defendant No. 7 not cross-examined him. Except the learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 no other defendants were cross-examined PW2. In this suit the defendant No. 1 who had filed the written statement which is adopted by defendant No. 2 wherein they have totally denied the case set up by the plaintiff. It is specific contention of the defendant No. 1 is that she has not at all executed any document muchless Ex.P4 agreement of sale. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 is that the alleged Ex.P4 agreement of sale is the outcome of fraud and mis- representation. It is the contention of the 1 st defendant is that since the plaintiff is her close relative and her two sons were not taking care of her and thus she was reposing much confidence upon the husband of the plaintiff. As such for security purpose she has given Ex.P1 sale deed dated 6.5.1969 executed by the society in respect of site No. 42 and other related documents to the plaintiff and her husband. So also it is the contention of the defendant No. 1 is that in view of much confidence upon the husband of plaintiff she has signed so many blank papers including stamp papers for the reason that he has to take steps on her behalf with the concerned authorities to get alternative site from the then CITB and present BDA. It is the contention of the 1 st defendant is that the plaintiff and her husband taking advantage of the same have got manipulated Ex.P4 alleged agreement of sale dated 13.7.1980. In order to substantiate the contention taken by the 1 st defendant during her life time the 1 st defendant has not stepped into the witness box and not contested the suit by giving oral evidence and by cross-examining PW1 and PW2. Even after the death of defendant No. 1 her legal heirs defendant No. 1(a) to 1(g) have also not contested the matter. Under such circumstances it can be said that mere pleading of fraud and coersion is not sufficient unless the said aspect has been proved before the court by placing acceptable evidence. Under such circumstances the contention of the defendant No. 1 is that Ex.P4 agreement of sale is an outcome of fraud and mis- representation cannot be accepted.