The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving fraud and misrepresentation in challenging a sale deed, and the requirement for a party to express readiness and willingness to pay the amount for re-conveyance.

The appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been filed in O.S.No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur seeking for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed on 07.10.1983 is void and illegal and to set aside the same with the alternative plea to direct the third defendant to re-convey the suit property on receiving the amount as mentioned in the plaint, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 07.10.1983 is genuine and valid.

2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is extracted hereunder:-

The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The first defendant is the father of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff has requested the first defendant for a loan. Since the defendants have insisted security for the grant of loan, the plaintiff agreed to execute a mortgage for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Even though, the mortgage has been executed for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, a sum of Rs.65,000/- alone was paid and the remaining sum of Rs.15,000/- has not been paid. In view of the pending litigations before the High Court and other commitments, the plaintiff was made to seek additional loans from the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff has executed the second mortgage for a sum of Rs.45,000/-. The plaintiff was so desperate that she was prepared to sign any document to secure the required sum. The plaintiff was asked to sign in the place indicated by the defendants in the document and printed papers on 07.10.1983. Thinking that the said document is only a registered mortgage, the content of the documents were not read by the plaintiff and the same was signed by the plaintiff. The defendants paid only a sum of Rs.25,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount thereafter. However, the defendants have not paid the amount promised by them. The defendants also started behaving badly with the plaintiff on 01.04.1984. Hence, the plaintiff grew suspicions on the act of the defendants and applied for the documents of the sale deed dated 07.10.1983. The plaintiff was startled to note that the defendants have created the sale deed of plaintiffs property. A physical verification of the said document would show that the sale deed dated 07.10.1983 could not have been voluntarily executed. The defendants had exploited the innocence of the plaintiff and have taken advantage of the trust and confidence reinforced on them. The defendants also collected the rent from the tenants in view of interest. The plaintiff never intended to sell the property. The document dated 07.10.1983 is non-est in law. The plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendants only after seeing the copy of the document of the sale deed dated 07.10.1983 on 04.04.1984. The recitals of the documents dated 07.10.1983 are fictitious and liable to be set aside as void and illegal. The mediators of both parties on 06.04.1984 wanted the defendants to receive back the amount and cancel the fraudulent document. Since the defendants did not agree for the same, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for setting aside the mortgage deed with the alternative prayer. In view of the fact that all the defendants had jointly committed the fraud together, the defendants 1 and 2 have been made as parties. Hence, the suit has to be decreed as prayed for.

3. The case of the defendants 1 to 3 is as follows:-

It is absolutely wrong to state that the plaintiff used to sign any document given by the defendants and that the plaintiff has been under constant pressure and difficulties. The letters written by Vibhuthi Veeramuthusamy and other letters signed by the plaintiff would clearly prove the said fact. It is only at the instance of Vibhuthi Veeramuthusamy, the first defendant was pleased to give the loan on security. The said Vibhuthi Veeramuthusamy is the care taker and custodian of the plaintiff. The said person, Vibhuthi Veeramuthusamy has arranged for the execution of the mortgage deed of the plaintiff in hi