The court emphasized the importance of considering evidence of consideration and undue influence in property disputes, and the validity of transactions involving minor children.

Appeal filed under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.1990 made in O.S.No.130 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.

This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1990 in O.S.No.130 of 1983 on the file of Sub-Court, Dharapuram in and by which, the learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the evidence found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim and accordingly dismissed the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff states as follows:

The suit property is situated in Moolanur Village. The plaintiff married one Nachammal and a female child was born out of the wedlock. The child was aged 8 years at the time of filing of the suit. Due to misunderstanding, the plaintiff and his wife Nachammal are living separately. The minor child Vijyalakshmi is living with her mother, Nachammal.

Because of separation, the wife of the plaintiff was giving trouble to the plaintiff. Taking advantage of this situation, the defendant being a close relative of the plaintiff advised the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed property in his favour, so that the plaintiff could avoid any litigation, in respect of the said property at a later stage in the case of his wife, namely, Nachammal. The plaintiff also believed the advice of the defendant as bona fide. In pursuance of the said advice, the plaintiff executed a sale deed, dated 16.02.1983 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property for a value of Rs.16,500/- and the same was registered on 04.03.1983. The possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff even now. In fact, the plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs.5,000/- on 13.07.1979 from the defendant. Similarly, on 16.01.1982, the plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs.5,000/- from one Ramasamy Goundar, S/o. Chidambarasamy Gounder. It was an understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has to discharge the pronote in favour of the said Ramasamy Gounder. It was also the understanding that the pronote in favour of the defendant should be adjusted towards the sale consideration. There was also a recital in the sale agreement that the defendant paid a sum of Rs.6,500/-towards the sale consideration. But the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff as per the recital. The pronote amount was also not discharged so far. Therefore, the said sale deed was without any consideration and therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the value of the land as on 04.03.1983 was Rs.50,000/-, whereas the sale consideration was undervalued at Rs.16,500/-. On this ground also, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter issued a lawyers notice to the defendant calling upon him to cancel the sale deed registered on 04.03.1983, as the sale transaction was due to the outcome of undue influence on the part of the defendant. But, there was no reply on the part of the defendant. Hence, the suit.

.4. The defendant states as follows :

.The plaintiff has been ordered to discharge the family debts necessiated him to sell the suit property. So the defendant negotiated with him to purchase the property for valuable consideration. The debts quoted in the sale deed were favoured for the benefit of the family and in order to discharge them, the plaintiff had to sell the property. So, the defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable and proper consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to question the sale deed. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

.5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Mr. Viswanathan was examined as P.W.2 and Mr. Chidamabarasami Gounder were examined as P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. One Mr. Veluchamy was examined as D.W.2. Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on the side of the defendant. The Lower Court after analys