An advocate cannot exploit the trust of a vulnerable client, and agreements executed under misrepresentation are subject to cancellation and damages.

ORDER :

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the defendant in the original suit, to set aside the Judgment and decree passed on 29.04.2024 in O.S. No.2521/2019 by the III Additional City Civil Court of Chennai, wherein, he suffered decree that the agreement of sale dated 24.11.2016, which was executed in his favour has been cancelled and that awarding payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages along with cost.

2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein before the Original Side of this Court, which is numbered as C.S.No.64 of 2018, later, it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai based on the pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.2521 of 2019.

3.1 The case of the plaintiff is that he along with his family members were resided in their ancestral house at Melavalampettai, Karunguli, Madhuranthagam Taluk and his parents as well as his sister all died, committing suicide in their ancestral house. At that point of time, the plaintiff was a minor and he was taken care by his paternal aunt, namely Kanchana. The plaintiff's father namely Subramani, left behind a lot of properties at Melavalampettai, Karunguli, Madhuranthagam Taluk and also a property situated at Old No.38, New No.55, Venkatesa Naicken Street, Kosapet, Chennai to an extent of 1299 sq.ft., which was purchased by his father vide sale deed dated 11.04.2008 in Document No.1464 of 2008. The relatives of the plaintiff, taking advantage of the pathetic situation of the plaintiff, ransacked his ancestral house, took all the documents relating to the properties of the plaintiff's father, money and jewelery of the plaintiff's mother, thus there was no parent document available with the plaintiff with regard to the properties left behind by his father.

3.2 To safeguard his properties, the plaintiff's paternal aunt and uncle on the reference of one Vinayagam, took the plaintiff to the defendant, who is a practicing advocate. By taking advantage of the precarious situation of the plaintiff, the defendant took the signature of the plaintiff in various blank papers and stamp papers and also informed the plaintiff that execution of a rental of lease agreement in favour of somebody is necessary for creating encumbrance over the plaintiff's father's property to safeguard it. Later, the defendant has also suggested that he will take his property on rent and thereby, paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- by means of two cheques both dated 29.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each. Further, the defendant called the plaintiff, his paternal aunt and uncle to meet him at Purasawalkam Sub Registrar Office on 24.11.2016 and subsequently, on the same day at late hours, the defendant rushed them in hurried manner, not allowed the plaintiff or plaintiff's aunt or uncle to read the document, obtained the signature of the plaintiff in the agreement of sale, under the guise of executing rental agreement, registered the same.

3.3 Since, the defendant has not paid the rent as agreed, the plaintiff was continuously asking the defendant to give the rent, thereby, the defendant gave a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Nagar West Extension, TVS Colony Branch, bearing No.534506, dated 11.11.2017. Thereafter, the defendant contacted the plaintiff and asked him not to present the cheque for collection, instead asked the plaintiff to sent his bank details, so that he will directly transfer Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff's bank account, accordingly, the defendant transferred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff's account. Subsequently, the defendant issued an advertisement in "Makkal Kural" and "Trinity Mirror" both dated 25.08.2017, stating that the original title deeds of the suit property was missing. Later, the plaintiff's paternal aunt was informed that someone is demolishing the plaint schedule property, hence the plaintiff and his paternal aunt and uncle went there and found that the defendant has engage