For a claim of fraud to succeed, credible evidence must be presented, which was absent in this case, validating the executed sale deed.

J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.

No.1008 of 1996 on the files of the Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode as well as the appellant in A.S. No.200 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Similarly, she was the defendant in O.S. No.61 of 1997 of the same court as well as the appellant in A.S. No.203 of 2002 of the same appellate court. The trial court dismissed O.S. No.1008 of 1996 and decreed O.S. No.61 of 1997.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the aforesaid appeals before the District Court, Kozhikode, which were transferred to the Sub Court, Kozhikode. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate court also dismissed both the appeals, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.1008 of 1996 and O.S. No.61 of 1997, respectively. These appeals are filed, challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.203 of 2002 and 200 of 2002, respectively. Since the parties are common and the matters in issue are one and the same, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly. Here, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S. No.1008 of 1996.

3. Original Suit No.1008 of 1996 is a Suit for cancellation of sale deed No.1345 of 1982, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, on the ground that the said sale deed is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. According to her, she `

borrowed an amount of 10,000/- from the defendant to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter and at the time of the said borrowal, she was constrained to put her signature in the stamp paper brought up by the defendant. She was made to believe that the contents of the document is that of a mortgage deed and the same was executed as a security for the `

amount of 10,000/- borrowed from him. Nobody has read over the contents of the documents to the plaintiff. Considering the relationship of the parties, the plaintiff has not insisted for reading the contents to her. Though, the said document was executed, possession of the property was not handed over to the defendant and the plaintiff was in possession of the property together with other properties. Recently, she came to know that the defendant is attempting to sell the plaint schedule property and on getting the said information, she made enquiries with the SRO and she came to know that the document executed by her was not a mortgage deed; but a sale deed. The said document was registered as a sale deed No.1345 of 1982 of SRO, Feroke and the same was executed by exertion of fraud and misrepresentation by the defendant. Plaintiff averred that the property would `

fetch a price of more than 20,000/-. But the `

consideration shown in the sale was only 8,000/-. The defendant has not obtained any right over the property under the sale deed. With these averments, the appellant has sought for a decree, cancelling sale deed No.1345 of 1982.

4. On the other hand, the defendant filed O.S.

No.61 of 1997, seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction, against the plaintiff and two others, restraining them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. In the written statement filed in O.S. No.1008 of 1996 and in the plaint in O.S. No.61 of 1997, the defendant denied the allegation that sale deed No.1345 of 1982 was executed by the plaintiff as security for the loan amount of `

10,000/- borrowed by the plaintiff from her and the plaintiff executed the document believing the words of the defendant that the same is a mortgage deed and she executed the same by exerting fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiff. According to the defendant, Ext.B1 is an absolute sale deed, the plaintiff had sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant, after fixing the price of the `

property as 8,000/- on negotiation and the sale deed was executed with the knowledge that the said document is a sale deed. It is contended that at the time of execution of that document, the contents of the documen