A sale deed executed under coercion and fraud is void, reaffirming the necessity of free consent in property transactions.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2237/2006 dated 03.01.2013 by the Fast Track Court-IV Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and declaring that the sale deed dated 06.07.2006 presented for registration on 11.07.2006 before defendant No.2 bearing No.P7130/06-07 in respect of the suit schedule properties is null and void and the permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. There was direction to draw a decree in the above terms.

2. The appellant was defendant No.1

and respondents 1(A) to 1(M) were the plaintiffs and respondents 2 to 4 were the defendants 2 to 4 before the Trial Court.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

4. The records of this appeal reveal that, the original plaintiff by name M.G.Shantakumar S/o.Late M.L.Gopalashetty filed suit in O.S.No.2237/2006 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties.

During the pendency of the suit, after the original plaintiff was cross-examined in part, he was killed and plaintiffs 1(A) to 1(M) were brought on record by virtue of the so called Will stated to have been executed by original plaintiff and they prosecuted the suit.

The facts in nutshell made out in the plaint are as under:

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the so called purported agreement in respect of the schedule properties got executed by defendant No.1 is null and void and as there was interference by the defendants, the original plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction. It is stated by the plaintiff that, he is the owner of agricultural properties situated in Sy.Nos.53/1, 53/2B, 55/1, 55/2, 55/3, 55/4, 56, 57/1, 57/2 and 58/2 in all measuring 22 acres 22 guntas, which is converted as part of the property bearing Sy.No.60/7 measuring about 26,470 sq. ft. situated in Hebbagodi village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District (hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule property” for convenience). It is stated that, all these properties form one unit. The original plaintiff was unmarried and had no issues. He used to reside alone. He got brothers and his brother’s family members, who are the plaintiffs, who came on record in the suit.

6. A specific assertion is made that, one year prior to filing of the suit, defendant No.1 approached the original plaintiff and proposed to purchase the suit schedule properties. To that effect, several discussions took place. According to original plaintiff, before entering into an agreement, defendant No.1 wanted to issue paper publication calling upon objections from the public, if any.

Accordingly, in the month of December-2005, paper publication was issued. Even after issuance of paper publication, defendant No.1 did not show any interest on the terms specified by the plaintiff to sell the schedule properties. Thereafter, plaintiff requested M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd., to help him to sell the schedule properties. One Mr. George introduced the said M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd. It is his assertion that, the said M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd., brought one M/s.Magna Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., as potential purchaser of the schedule properties and agreed to purchase the same after conversion at the rate of `825/- per sq.ft. The lawyers of the said company issued a public notice with regard to the proposed transaction. This fact was informed by defendant No.1 to M/s.Magna Warehousing and Distribution Pvt., Ltd., stating that he already had an understanding with the original plaintiff to that effect. The plaintiff cl