Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Ranjith Thampan, Smt. P.R. Reena.
For the Respondents: Sri. A. Antony, Smt. Leelamma Antony.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case, with references to the specific sections of the judgment:

• Case Details: The case involves Smt. Soossan Johnson (Appellant/Plaintiff) versus Manoj S. S/o Sivasankara Pillai (Respondent), regarding R.F.A. No. 582 of 2015 decided on 15-09-2020 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. (!)
• Original Suit: The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 278/2000 seeking a declaration of title and possession over 58.750 cents and a building, and to set aside Sale-Deed No. 1123/2008 which she alleged was executed under deceit. (!)
• Plaintiff's Allegations: The plaintiff claimed her son was offered employment by the second defendant (Proprietor of Stone Hill Foundation Publishing Co.) and was asked to execute a Bond secured by her property title deeds. She alleged she was deceived into signing a Sale-Deed believing it was a security bond, with no consideration paid. (!)
• Defendants' Counter-Claim: The first defendant denied the employment allegations and claimed the plaintiff voluntarily sold the property for Rs. 2,50,000/- and handed over possession, subsequently executing a Rectification Deed. (!)
• Trial Court's Decision: The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the Sale-Deed valid based on factors like the execution of a Rectification Deed, the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, and the change of registry in the defendant's favor. (!)
• Appeal Outcome: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's judgment, and decreed the original suit, declaring the Sale-Deed and Rectification Deed as null and void due to fraud. (!)
• Key Finding on Employment: The High Court found that the defendants' denial of the son's employment was contradicted by the unchallenged appointment letter (Exhibit A3) and witness testimony, proving the son was indeed employed and the bond demand was genuine. (!)
• Key Finding on Consideration: The Court found no evidence that any sale consideration was paid. The Scribe (DW-2) testified he did not see the plaintiff receive money at her residence, contradicting the defendant's claim that the full amount was paid there. (!)
• Key Finding on Possession: The Court concluded the plaintiff never gave vacant possession. The Scribe's testimony indicated the Sale-Deed was executed at the Sub-Registrar's office, not the plaintiff's residence, making the defendant's claim of receiving keys at her home false. (!)
• Key Finding on Valuation: The Sale-Deed recorded a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-, whereas the Bank's valuation report showed a market value of Rs. 14.75 lakhs and a distress value of Rs. 11.80 lakhs, indicating gross inadequacy of price. (!)
• Key Finding on Loan Settlement: The plaintiff paid off the entire loan liability (over Rs. 10.97 lakhs plus additional amounts) to prevent a distress sale by the Federal Bank, demonstrating her bona fides and the defendants' indifference. (!)
• Legal Provisions: The Court held the documents void under Sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Indian Contract Act for fraud and coercion, and under Sections 14 and 16 of the Indian Contract Act for deceit. (!)
• Reliefs Granted: The Court issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and directed the Bank to return all property documents to the plaintiff. (!)