A sale deed executed without consideration or under coercion is void under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

COMMON JUDGEMENT These Second Appeals have been preferred against the common Judgement and Decree dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.22 of 2011 and A.S.No.23 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court and in appropriate places, their rank in the First Appellate Court and the present second appeals would also be indicated.

3. Before the Trial Court, the first respondent in S.A.No.272 of 2015, (hereinafter the term “respondent in S.A.No.271 of 2015” shall also refer to “the first respondent” in S.A.Nos.271 & 272 of 2015 collectively) has filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gingee, seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by the appellant herein in favour of the second respondent herein, as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, together with costs.

4. Similarly, the appellant herein has also filed a suit in O.S.No.64 of 2005 on file of the Sub-Court, Gingee, seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of possession as against the first respondent. The Trial Court, by its common judgement and decree dated 04.03.2010, decreed the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2005 filed by the appellant herein and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2005 filed by the first respondent.

5. Aggrieved by the said common judgement and decree, the first respondent preferred two separate appeals in A.S.No.22 of 2011 and A.S.No.23 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The First Appellate, allowed both the appeals, by its common judgement dated 25.09.2013, decreed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2005 filed by the first respondent and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2005 filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the said common judgement and decrees, the appellant herein has filed the present Second Appeals before this Court.

6. The brief facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff / first respondent before the Trial Court in O.S.No.49 of 2005 are as follows:-

i) The plaintiff is the original owner of the suit property, having purchased the property under a Sale Deed dated 24.07.2002. The sale consideration was paid from the income of the plaintiff and her husband. Thereafter, they constructed a house after obtaining permission from the local authorities, and the plaintiff also obtained secured electricity and water service connections from the concerned departments.

ii) The second defendant/second respondent herein, is a building contractor, and the first defendant/appellant herein is working as an Office Assistant under the second defendant. During the construction of a marriage hall at West Mambalam, Chennai, the husband of the plaintiff was employed as a watchman under the second defendant. At the time, one Suresh, who was working as a Site Engineer under the second defendant, was also involved in the project.

iii) On 29.01.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., the first and second defendants came to the plaintiff's house, along with some rowdy elements, demanded the parental title documents of the suit property, and represented that the said Suresh, along with the husband of the plaintiff, had stolen construction materials belonging to the second defendant. They stated that in order to compensate the value of the stolen materials, the plaintiff should execute a Sale Deed, and they also informed her that her husband had been abducted by them. They further threatened to kill her husband if sh