1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 11 in a suit for realisation of Rs. 11,057.27. Originally the suit was filed against the sole defendant, Rossa after whose death the other defendants were impleaded as her heirs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the third defendant, son of Rossa owed the above said amount to plaintiffs 2 and 3, that there was a mediation talk and Rossa agreed to pay the amount to the first plaintiff before 30th May 1981. An agreement dated 16th November, 1980 was also executed by her to the above effect.

3. The contention of the original defendant was that no amount was due from her son George and she signed certain blank papers when she was told that her son would be taken to police station as an accused. There was no agreement signed by her knowing it to be an agreement to pay the amount to the first plaintiff or other plaintiffs. The supplemental defendants also contended in the same lines as contended by the original defendant.

4. The trial court found that Ext.A-1 was vitiated by coercion and undue influence and the suit was dismissed. In appeal the Appellate Court held that the signature of the first defendant having been admitted the burden shifts to the defendants to show that it was an invalid document. It is found that by executing Ext.A-1 agreement the first defendant has stood in the shoes of the third defendant from whom amounts were due to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and there is novation and therefore Ext.A-1 is enforceable. It is also found that consideration can be a promise not to pursue the criminal prosecution against the third defendant and the consideration need not necessarily be from the promisee himself. With regard to the admissibility of Ext.A-1 as a mortgage for want of registration the Appellate Court found that Ext.A-1 cannot be considered as a mortgage and no objection was taken at the time the document was admitted in evidence. Thus the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs and future interest against defendants 2 to 11 and to the extent of the property of the deceased first defendant in their hands.

5. The substantial questions of law on which notice was ordered by this Court read as follows:

(a) When there is no privity of contract between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant can Ext.A-1 creates any valid right?

(b) When the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not parties to Ext.A-1 can it be enforced by them and is not the suit bad for misjoinder of parties?

(c) Having admitted that there is no passing of consideration in execution of Ext.A-1 is not an void document?

(d) Whether the principle of novation be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

(e) To constitute coercion in execution of Ext.A-1, is not sufficient to have a threat of criminal prosecution?

(f) When Ext.A-1 creates a charge upon immovable property and is a compulsorily registerable document, non objection of marking the same will make it valid?

6. After hearing the counsel on both sides for sometime, I framed the following additional question of law and the parties were heard on the said question of law also.

"Is the lower appellate court correct in law in stating that abstaining from launching criminal prosecution against the third defendant by Joseph and others is a good consideration for the first defendant to execute Ext.A-1 in favour of the first plaintiff?"

7. Learned counsel representing the appellants Sri Sreelal Warrier argued that Ext.A-1 is not enforceable in law as it was obtained by coercion. He further contended that even if it is found that Ext.A-1 was, as a matter of fact executed by the original defendant after knowing about its contents, it is unenforceable in law as there is no privity of contract between the first plaintiff and the first defendant. The further contention is that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 being not parties in Ext.A-1 they cannot enforce Ext.A-1 against the defendants. The finding of the lower appellate court that a pr