A transfer document's validity stands unless proven otherwise; claims of duress must be backed by substantial evidence to affect property rights.

JUDGMENT

I am considering these two appeals together and am disposing them of through a common judgment, since the factual factors involved and the forensic issues impelled are analogous, if not identical.

2. The facts in brief, which led to the parties to the Sub Court, Tirur, will have to be first seen.

3. The plaint schedule property, which comprises of 17.5 cents, originally belonged to Late Nellikkaparambil Beevikutti Umma (who will hereinafter to be referred to as 'Beevikutti Umma'), who subsequently, settled it in favour of her son, Shri.Saidalavi, who is the 2nd appellant in both these appeals. Shri.Saidalavi, thereafter, sold 2/3rd right in the property in favour of Shri.Pallippattu Thoomban Abdul Muneer (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'Abdul Muneer'), through a document, bearing number 5014 of 2009 of the SRO, Tanur, which has been marked in evidence as Ext.A3; while the balance 1/3rd right was resold by him to his mother Smt.Beevikutti Umma, through a document bearing number 1037 of 2003.

4. A year later, Shri.Abdul Muneer filed O.S.No.260 of 2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, against Smt.Beevikutti Umma seeking partition of the plaint schedule property and this was resisted by the latter claiming that she has rights over the residential property situated therein, on the strength of the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act . On the apprehension that she is likely to be dispossessed from this house, Smt.Beevikutti Umma thereupon filed O.S.No.239 of 2011 against both Shri.Abdul Muneer and Shri.Saidalavi, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against them from disturbing her.

5. The records reveal that pending these suits, Smt.Beevikutti Umma died and her children, namely, Shri.Saidalavi, Smt.Rukkiya, Smt.Safiya and Smt.Aminakutty @ Najmunneesa were impleaded as additional defendants in O.S.No.260 of 2010, on the application of Shri.Abdul Muneer; while Smt.Rukkiya, Smt.Safiya and Smt.Aminakutty @ Najmunneesa impleaded themselves as additional appellants in O.S.No.239 of 2011, arraying Shri.Saidalavi as an additional defendant therein.

6. It transpires that the plea of partition of the plaint schedule property was resisted by the legal heirs of Smt.Beevikutti Umma after they were impleaded in O.S.No.260 of 2010 on the same lines as were put up by their deceased mother; but Shri.Saidalavi took an independent contention that document No.5014 of 2009, namely Ext.A3, under which Shri.Abdul Muneer is claiming rights over the property, was not one supported by consideration and that he had executed the same under pressure merely as security for a loan which he had availed from Shri.Abdul Muneer. He also averred that, as additional security for the said debt, he had issued certain cheques and stamp papers to Shri.Abdul Muneer - the copies of the said cheques being available on record as Exts.X1, X1(a) & X1(b) - thus asserting that the plea of Shri.Abdul Muneer for partition is not sustainable.

7. As regards O.S.No.239 of 2011 is concerned, Shri.Saidalavi, who had been arrayed as an additional defendant therein as stated above, made identical contentions and claimed full rights over the residential house as well as the plaint schedule property, predicating that Ext.A3 document cannot vest any ownership rights over it in Shri.Abdul Muneer.

8. On the afore assertions of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the defendant is entitled for

the equities and reservation claimed?

2. In the event of partition what are the

shares to which parties are entitled?

3. Reliefs and costs?

Addl. Issues 4. Whether D3 executed assignment deed No.5014/09 in favour of plaintiff?

5. Whether plaintiff got any right over the property on the strength of document No.5014/09 of SRO, Tanur?”

9. As is evident from the issues raised, as far as Smt.Beevikutti Umma is concerned, the question is only whether she was entitled to equity and reservation over the residential house situated in