Allegations of fraud in contract require specific evidence; mere assertions are insufficient. Validity of a sale deed remains if ownership transfers, regardless of complete payment.

JUDGMENT

The suit had been filed seeking a Judgment and Decree to declare that the sale deed dated 22.07.2015 registered as Document No. 865 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Registrar -II, Thousand Lights, Chennai with respect to the suit schedule 'A' property as fraudulent null and void and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return to the plaintiffs the documents mentioned in Schedule -B and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interferring with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the suit schedule property.

2. The property mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint, is land and building bearing new Door No. 41, Old Door No.21, previous Door No.18-B, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai, measuring one ground and 2185 sq.ft., with ground floor and first floor. In Schedule -B list of four documents have been given including sale deeds dated 23.11.1966, 10.10.1968, 23.04.1987, 31.07.2006 and 22.07.2015.

3. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the wife of hte second plaintiff. It had been contended in the plaint that the second plaintifff S.M.D. Mohamed Abdul Khader is a trustee of a public Trust called Mohammed Sathak Trust which runs 18 educational institutions including an Engineering College. It had been claimed that the plaintiffs belonged to a traditionally rich family and the first and second plaintiffs get a rental income for about Rs.3,00,000/- per month from their properties, apart from other income. They had therefore no necessity to sell any of their properties.

4. It has been further contended that the first and second plaintiffs had purchased the property described in schedule-A to the plaint namely land and building measuring one ground and 2185 sq.ft., by registered sale deed dated 31.07.2006, registered as Document No. 764 of 2006 in the Office of the Joint Sub Registrar – II, Thousand Lights, Chennai. They claimed to be the absolute owners of the said proeprty. In the plaint, the said property had been valued at Rs.15/- crores.

5. It had been further contended that the second plaintiff was born after several years of the marriage of the first plaintiff. He was born as a premature baby and this had affected his mental caliber and knowledge. It had been further stated that he was not doing any business or profession and only lived on the rental income. He married the third plaintiff on 22.12.2014.

6. It had been further contended that the second plaintiff got the acquittance of one Javvad, who hails from Keelakarai in Ramanathapuram District and who convinced the second plaintiff that if he has to get respect from his family members, then he must venture into some business and earn money. He suggested importing air conditioners and television sets and selling them in the local market. It had been further stated that Javvad took the second plaintiff to Kancheepuram and showed him a Mall and that they could take a shop in the mall to do the business. Later, he took the second plaintiff to a shop in Purasawalkam, Chennai and stated that if they do business in imported chappels and rolex watches, they would easily get profit.

7. Thereafter, the second plaintiff under pressure from Javvad pledged the jewels of his mother the first plaintiff with private financiars including Muthoot Finance and raised a sum of Rs.27/- lakhs and handedover the said amount to Javvad. He had also sought diamond jewels to be pledged but that was not accepted by the financier. After receiving the money, Javvad started to avoid further communiction and finally stopped communitation.

8. The second plaintiff then took this issue to the notice of one Halwath, son of Anash Alimsha also from Keelakarai. The said Halwath told the second plaintiff that if he does business in T-shirts, then he could redeem the jewels and start a good business. He wanted a sum of Rs.14/- lakhs for this purpose. He then introduced the second plaintiff to two other individuals Hathi Ahmed and S