The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish allegations of fraud in executing a sale deed, which they failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of their suit.

JUDGMENT :

(M.I. ARUN, J.)

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2018 passed by III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1620/2005, defendant no.1 therein has preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court.

3. Plaintiff no.1 is the mother and plaintiff no.2 was her son. He has died subsequent to filing of the original suit and his wife was impleaded as plaintiff no.2(a). It is further submitted that at the time of filing of the present appeal, plaintiff no.2(a) has been impleaded as respondent no.2 herein. She also died during the course of the proceedings and her daughter has been impleaded as respondent no.2(a) in the present proceedings.

4. Plaintiffs were said to be the owners of the suit schedule property. The same has been sold in favour of defendant No.1 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.02.2002 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they never intended to sell the suit schedule property. It is submitted that they required money for their personal needs and defendant No.2 who was a private financier agreed to arrange for the same and it was agreed that a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- would be paid to the plaintiffs upon they executing a usufructuary mortgage deed in respect of the suit schedule property and believing his words, they had gone to the Sub-Registar's office and by playing fraud on them, the defendants have got executed a sale deed dated 27.02.2002 and the plaintiffs were unaware as to execution of the same as they don't know English, the language in which the sale deed is drafted. It is further contended that defendant no.2 has signed the document as a witness. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs have received only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cash and the remaining Rs.40,000/- was in fact taken by defendant No.2. On the said grounds, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1620/2005 with the following prayers:

"Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree declaring:

(a) For declaration that the sale deed dated 27/02/2002 registered as Document No.14668/2001-02 in Book-I, Volume No.2363, at pages 56-58 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant is voidable and the defendant did not acquire any interest under the sale deed;

(b) For cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.02.2002 registered as Document No.14668/2001-02 in Book-I, Volume No.2363, at pages 56-58 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru to the defendant to deliver possession of the portion of the schedule property to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are ready to deposit Rs.1,80,000/-.

(bb) To direct the defendant no.1 and all other persons claiming under him to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the portions of the Schedule A premises in which they are in the unauthorized possession.

(c) Restraining the defendant from interfering, meddling, trespassing or dispossession the plaintiffs from the schedule property by an order of permanent injunction;

(d) Any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

5. Upon service of notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance before the trial court. However, defendant No.1 alo