Illiterate woman alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

Mishra, J.

This appeal is directed by the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The plaintiff/lst respondent, it is not in dispute, owned the schedule B property-house, lived in a portion of the same, while the other portion was occupied by tenants. She mortgaged the property to one Murugesa Asari, borrowing a sum of Rs.1,200 from him. In the middle of December, 1972, however, when she needed further money, the defendant/ Appellant who was a close relative volunteered to help her stating that he would advance further sum required by her. that he would discharge the subsisting mortgage and take in his name a fresh mortgage for the amount advanced by him and the amount paid for discharging the earlier mortgage. According to the plaintiff, thus representing, the defendant obtained a document from her on 1. 1973 and paid a sum of Rs.1,000. The plaintiff/1st respondent, according to her case, was all along under the impression that the document dated 1. 1973 was only a mortgage deed for a sum of Rs.2,500 consisting of Rs.1,500 to be paid in discharge of the earlier mortgage and Rs.1,000 to be paid to her in cash at the time of registration. Notwithstanding the execution of the document, however, the plaintiff-1st respondent continued to live in the portion in which she was living.

3. A year prior to the institution of the suit, according to the 1st plaintiff an advocate’s notice was served upon her. However, she was not made aware of the contents of the notice by the defendant to whom also the lawyer’s notice was intended. He represented to her that he would make arrangements to send a suitable reply. The 1st plaintiff relied solely on the defendant and so she was not aware of the reply sent on her behalf. In April, 1974 she however came to know that the defendant had played a fraud on her and obtained a sale deed instead of a mortgage deed. She, thereafter, obtained a copy of the sale deed dated 1. 1973 and sent a notice to the defendant calling upon him to cancel the deed and accept the amount advanced by him, and when the defendant did not comply with the demand made by her,she filed the suit.

.4. The defendant-appellant in the written statement however stated that apart from the money due to Murugesa Asari, the 1st plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000 from one Mariappan, the brother of the defendant, on a promissory note dated 8. 1971. Likewise, she had borrowed various sums from the defendant on various occasions totalling in all to Rs.1,800. The first plaintiff wanted to discharge these debts. She also required more money since after the discharge of the debt, she decided to settle down at Madras. It was, in those circumstances, she approached the defendant pressing for the acceptance of the property for Rs.6,000. Even though the property was not even worth Rs.5,000 at that time, on account of the 1st plaintiffs insistence, the defendant agreed to purchase the property. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.1,500 was paid to Murugesa, a sum of Rs.1,200 to Mariappa and Rs.1,800 was adjusted towards the hand-loan borrowed by the 1st plaintiff from the defendant. Out of the balance, Rs.500 was paid to the 1st plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed and the balance of Rs.1,000 was paid to her at the time of registration. The defendant-appellant disputed the allegation of the 1st plaintiff that she was unaware of the contents of the document and asserted that she was fully aware as to what she was doing. She was fully aware as to what she was doing and she had conducted several litigations herself. There was no fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by the first plaintiff. After the sale, the municipal registry as well as the electric supply connection have been transferred in the name of the defendant. Denying the occupation as claimed by the 1st plaintiff of a portion of the building, the defendant-appellant asserted that the 1st plaintiff only recently trespassed into the house and forcibl