Sale transaction cannot be entered into without verifying link documents.

T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

This appeal, under section 96 C.P.C, is filed assailing the decree and judgment dated 29.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.169 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.11.2006 in respect of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was dismissed.

For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

The case of the plaintiff, in nutshell, is that she got the land admeasuring 649-8/9 and house bearing Assessment No.162 (new Assessment No.616), Door No.4-1-23, situated in Ward No.5 (old Ward No.1), T.S.No.509 of Guntur town (hereafter, plaint ‘A’ schedule property) from her parents. Originally the said property along with plaint ‘B’ property and other properties were purchased by her father, by name Kurella Adinarayana Sastry, from Pannala Venugopala Krishna Murthy under registered sale deed dated 19.01.1959. Part of the property was sold by her father to Mogili China Kotaiah and to Beesa Venkata Subbamma under registered sale deeds. After death of plaintiff’s father, her mother filed O.S.No.829 of 1986 against Beesa Venkata Subbamma and her son-in-law Veera Brahmam. The suit was partly decreed against which plaintiff’s mother preferred A.S.No.238 of 1989 wherein the appellate court directed Venkata Subbamma and her adopted daughter to pay Rs.10,000/- in respect of the site occupied by them. Aggrieved by the said direction, Venkata Subbamma and her adopted daughter preferred S.A.No.576 of 1994 and the same is pending.

In September, 2006 plaintiff’s mother suffered with intestinal cancer and plaintiff took her to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. In the hospital, one G.N.R. Lakshmi who introduced herself as member of Santhiniketan, which is a social welfare organisation, and her husband was also taking treatment in Kamineni Hospitals due to cancer in the next room of plaintiff’s mother. The said Lakshmi introduced the defendant to the plaintiff stating that defendant is a social worker and real estate dealer. The defendant pretended as if he is a well-wisher of the plaintiff and his services can be secured for any purpose, which the plaintiff requires. The defendant made enquiries about the properties of the plaintiff and came to know that the plaint schedule property is owned by her at Guntur and there is no body to look after the same. At that time the plaintiff owned a vacant site at Kuntluru, which is under dispute. The defendant with a view to gain confidence of the plaintiff purchased the same for a price which is far lower than the real market value. Having gained confidence of the plaintiff, the defendant acted as if he is very much interested in the welfare of the plaintiff and now and then helping the plaintiff in consulting the doctors for treatment of plaintiff’s mother. The plaintiff’s mother passed away on 26.10.2006.

The defendant represented plaintiff that there is a cancer society, which is a Non Governmental Organisation, to help the cancer patients. The defendant was having a big plot and out of which he already conveyed a portion in favour of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff executes a document in respect of the said plot in favour of society, the society will pay her Rs.2 to 3 lakhs. The plaintiff was asked to come to the Registrar’s office on 22.11.2006 and she went there and executed a document in favour of cancer society. A week thereafter the defendant brought a draft for Rs.10.00 lakhs and after crediting the amount in plaintiff’s bank account, the defendant took Rs.7.00 lakhs representing that the cancer society gave Rs.3.00 lakhs only to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff believed the words of defendant because her mother was hospitalised and her sons are not with her. Her elder son fell in love with a Punjabi girl and married her. Her younger son failed B.Com and living as a vagabond. The defendant pretended as if c