{"id":133552,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-20T20:02:15","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T14:32:15","slug":"ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 250 of 1999(Y)\n\n\n\n1. IVY ABRAHAM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ITTY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.RAMADAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :06\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.                        C.R\n                         ----------------------------------------\n                         A.S.Nos. 250& 251 of 1999\n                         ----------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 561\/1994 and defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.<\/p>\n
No. 629\/1994      on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam, are the<\/p>\n
appellants in A.S. No.s 250 and 251 of 1999 respectively. These appeals<\/p>\n
arise out of a common judgment in the said suits. O.S No. 629\/1994 was<\/p>\n
filed for a declaration that the sale deed No. 2625\/1993 executed by the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and for a perpetual<\/p>\n
injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing upon the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property or effecting any transfer relating to the property<\/p>\n
based on the above sale deed and for a decree of mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
directing the 2nd defendant to return the blank cheques and stamped<\/p>\n
papers delivered to him at the time of execution of the sale deed No.<\/p>\n
2625\/1993. The       connected suit viz. O.S. 561\/1994            is a suit filed by<\/p>\n
defendant 1 and 2 in O.S No.629\/1994                      for a perpetual injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the 1st plaintiff in O.S No. 629\/1994 from trespassing upon the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property or obstructing their possession and peaceful<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the same and from collecting the future rent of the building<\/p>\n
and to direct the 1st defendant (plaintiff in O.S. No. 629\/1994) to pay Rs.<\/p>\n
33,250\/- with future interest at 6% per annum which he has already<\/p>\n
received from the tenant as rent amount. The court below jointly tried<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999               -2<\/p>\n
both suits, evidence was recorded in O.S No. 629\/1994 and a common<\/p>\n
judgment was passed. The court below decreed O.S. No. 629\/1994. The<\/p>\n
sale deed No. 2625\/1993 (Ext.B4) executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant is declared null and void and granted both prohibitory and<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction as prayed for; and dismissed O.S No. 561\/1994 .<\/p>\n
The parties hereinafter are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as<\/p>\n
arrayed in O.S. No. 629\/1994 and the exhibits are stated hereinafter as<\/p>\n
produced and marked in O.S No. 629\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      The plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 629\/1994 is 10 Cents<\/p>\n
of land and a building situated thereon . . The 2nd plaintiff is the father of<\/p>\n
the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
and the building by virtue of a settlement deed No. 2588\/1979 of S.R.O. ,<\/p>\n
Kottayam executed by the 2nd plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that the<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff became an alcoholic sometime in 1990 and was continued to be<\/p>\n
so till July 1993.      The 1st plaintiff was under treatment for alcoholic<\/p>\n
dependence and Hypomania at “Total Response to Alcohol and Drug<\/p>\n
Abuse” (TRADA) from 1991. The 1st plaintiff continued his treatment till<\/p>\n
July 1993 at “TRADA. It is further pleaded that though his alcoholic<\/p>\n
dependence was considerably reduced by treatment, his affective disorder<\/p>\n
persisted and he was continuing treatment with Dr.Radhakrishnan , C.K.N.<\/p>\n
Psychiatric Neuro Clinic, Changanassery for affective disorder and that<\/p>\n
though he recovered from affective disorder and unsoundness of mind in<\/p>\n
July 1994, he is still under treatment of Dr.Radhakrishnan.             It is the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ case that the 1st plaintiff started attending prayer meetings from<\/p>\n
June 1992 to escape from alcoholism .             Prayers were     conducted by<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999                -3<\/p>\n
believers in residential houses. While so the 1st plaintiff got acquainted with<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant and developed intimacy with him               According to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs the 1st plaintiff developed absolute confidence in 2nd defendant and<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant was his “Guru” in all matters . Some time in July 1993<\/p>\n
there was a proposal to purchase a Coffee estate having an extent of 181<\/p>\n
acres in Coorg for Rs.67 = lakhs. A group was formed for purchase of the<\/p>\n
estate including the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant and the estate was<\/p>\n
proposed to be purchased in October 1993. The 1st plaintiff had no money<\/p>\n
to invest in estate deal and the 2nd defendant promised that he will provide<\/p>\n
the necessary finance of Rs. 10 lakhs which was the contribution of the<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff, provided the 1st plaintiff executed a sale deed in respect of plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant. It is further averred in the plaint that the 2nd defendant also<\/p>\n
undertake to cancel the said sale deed if he is not able to raise the<\/p>\n
finance as agreed by him. The 2nd defendant also procured three blank<\/p>\n
signed stamped papers and three signed cheque leaves from the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff as a security for raising the loan. Believing the words of the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant, the 1st plaintiff executed the sale deed No. 2625\/1993 dated<\/p>\n
17.9.1993       in favour of the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant. No amount was paid to the 1st plaintiff on execution of the sale<\/p>\n
deed     by the 1st defendant, though there is a           recital of payment of<\/p>\n
1,80,000\/- nor was there any intention to pay the amount . According to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs the plaint schedule property and the building thereon is worth<\/p>\n
Rs. 10 lakhs and further averred that the 1st plaintiff could not have<\/p>\n
executed a sale        deed    for 1,80,000\/- relating to the plaint    schedule<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -4<\/p>\n
property but for the unsoundness of his mind due to affective disorder at<\/p>\n
the time of execution of the document. It is further stated in the plaint that<\/p>\n
the scheme for purchase of the estate did not fructify and therefore,      the<\/p>\n
proposed amount of Rs. 10 lakhs payable by the 2nd defendant to the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff for the contribution to be made by him for the purchase of estate<\/p>\n
became unnecessary.         By   July 1994 the 1st plaintiff had practically<\/p>\n
recovered from his mental disorder and then only he realised the folly of<\/p>\n
executing the document in favour of the 1st defendant and therefore he<\/p>\n
approached the 2nd defendant for cancellation of the document. The 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant refused to cancel the said sale deed. According to the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
the possession of the property had not been delivered as mentioned in the<\/p>\n
sale deed The main building in the property was in the possession of the<\/p>\n
3rd defendant as a lessee and the godown is in the possession of Messrs.<\/p>\n
Thannickal Brothers. The keys of the building were not handed over to the<\/p>\n
1st defendant as the possession of the building was with 2nd plaintiff and 3rd<\/p>\n
defendant. It is further alleged that the sale deed No.2625\/1993 is abinitio<\/p>\n
void and as it was executed by the 1st plaintiff due to the unsoundness of<\/p>\n
mind     and affective disorder, and therefore he     was    not capable of<\/p>\n
understanding the consequences of executing         such a document and<\/p>\n
forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interest. It is also<\/p>\n
pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 had no means to pay Rs 1,80,000\/- as<\/p>\n
recited in the said document, that though the sale deed was executed, the<\/p>\n
2nd plaintiff continued to receive the rent from the 3rd defendant and from<\/p>\n
Thannickal Brothers, that there was a negotiation for settlement of the<\/p>\n
matter, that in the course of negotiation the 2nd defendant     demanded a<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999             -5<\/p>\n
sum of Rs. 2,70,000\/- for cancelling the sale deed, that the 2nd plaintiff was<\/p>\n
not aware of the above dealings and the impugned sale deed had been<\/p>\n
executed without his knowledge or consent and that the 2nd defendant<\/p>\n
tried to trespass upon the plaint schedule property. on the basis of the<\/p>\n
above said facts OS No. 629\/1994was filed for the reliefs mentioned in<\/p>\n
the 1st paragraph of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The defendants      in their joint written statement   contended<\/p>\n
interalia that the sale deed is supported by           consideration, that the<\/p>\n
allegations in the plaint regarding the alcoholism and mental weakness<\/p>\n
and infirmity are absolutely false, that the 1st defendant is in possession<\/p>\n
and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, that the 1st plaintiff had<\/p>\n
never in alcoholic affection or in mental or physical weakness on account<\/p>\n
of it and he was not affected by any disorder. It is contended that the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff was capable of doing things properly understanding and evaluating<\/p>\n
his actions. The defendants also denied the plaint allegation to the effect<\/p>\n
that   the 1st plaintiff fall under the influence of 2nd defendant and the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff treated him as “Guru”. The sale deed executed by the 1st plaintiff<\/p>\n
in favour of the 1st defendant is perfectly legal and valid and the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant is the title holder of the plaint schedule property . The plaint<\/p>\n
allegation that the 2nd defendant influenced the 1st plaintiff and that the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant agreed to arrange money for the share of the 1st plaintiff for<\/p>\n
purchasing the above said coffee estate and the consequent procurement<\/p>\n
of sale deed are denied. The defendants also refuted the allegation that<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant had obtained signed paper and signed blank cheque<\/p>\n
from the 1st plaintiff. The defendants also pleaded that the sale deed<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -6<\/p>\n
No.2625\/1993 was duly executed and registered on receiving Rs. 1.80<\/p>\n
lakhs by the 1st plaintiff as consideration and the possession of property<\/p>\n
had been delivered to the 1st defendant. According to them the 1st plaintiff<\/p>\n
executed the document fully knowing the consequence of such document<\/p>\n
and its effects on his interest and that there is nothing unconscionable in<\/p>\n
the transaction and further denied the plaint averment that the property is<\/p>\n
worth Rs.10 lakhs.      The defendants also stated in the written statement<\/p>\n
that the 1st plaintiff undertook to evict the 3rd defendant from the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule building and hence the fact that the possession of the building<\/p>\n
was retained by the lessee was not mentioned in the sale deed and the<\/p>\n
defendants not attempted to collect rent from the 3rd defendant. In fact the<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff agreed to    collect the rent   and agreed    to pay it    to the<\/p>\n
defendants The defendants also alleged that the original title deed was not<\/p>\n
handed over to the 1st defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed<\/p>\n
and that the defendants were made to believe by the 1st plaintiff that the<\/p>\n
original sale deed was irrecoverably lost.\n<\/p>\n
      4.      The 3rd defendant filed a written statement stating that he is not<\/p>\n
a necessary party to the suit, that he got the building from the 1st plaintiff<\/p>\n
for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500\/-       from 3.8.1993 onwards,      that he is<\/p>\n
regularly paying rent to the 1st plaintiff and that since the title of the<\/p>\n
building is in dispute he      did not pay the rent from 2.6.1994 It is also<\/p>\n
averred that he is ready to pay the rent to the original owner of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule building.\n<\/p>\n
      5.      The 1st defendant in O.S No. 629\/1994       is the 1st plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S. No. 561\/1994.      The second defendant in O.S. No. 561\/1994 is the<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -7<\/p>\n
tenant who is the 3rd defendant in O.S No. 629\/1994. O.S. No. 561\/1994<\/p>\n
was filed by defendants on the allegation that the defendants      are trying<\/p>\n
to interfere with   and obstruct the possession of the plaintiffs over the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property and the building thereon and that the defendants<\/p>\n
have no right or possession over the plaint schedule property and the<\/p>\n
building thereon. They also prayed that the        1st defendant     may be<\/p>\n
restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from trespassing upon the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule     property,  or    obstructing the defendants’ peaceful<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the same and from collecting the future rent<\/p>\n
of the building and to direct the tenant    to pay Rs. 33,250\/- with future<\/p>\n
interest at 6% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 561\/1994 filed written statement<\/p>\n
raising almost the same allegations raised in the plaint in O.S No.629\/1994<\/p>\n
as plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
       7.     The 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 561\/1994        also filed written<\/p>\n
statement adopting all the same contentions raised in O.S No. 624 of<\/p>\n
1994 as 3rd defendant.\n<\/p>\n
       8.     The evidence in these cases consists of the oral testimony of<\/p>\n
PWs 1 to 5, DWs 1 to 4, Exts. A1 to A10, B1 to B14(a) and Exts. X1 to X3.<\/p>\n
       9.     The trial court  framed necessary issues The main issues<\/p>\n
which arises for consideration are whether the sale deed No. 2625\/1993 is<\/p>\n
a sham document         not supported by consideration, whether the said<\/p>\n
document was brought         into existence by exercise of fraud undue<\/p>\n
influence and misrepresentation, whether the 1st plaintiff was not in a<\/p>\n
sound state of mind to execute the said sale deed        due to his affective<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -8<\/p>\n
disorder and whether the said sale deed is liable to be declared as null and<\/p>\n
void and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of prohibitory and<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction as prayed for.      In the connected suit i.e O.S. No.<\/p>\n
561\/1994 the issues that arises for consideration         are whether the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant has got title over the plaint schedule property, whether the<\/p>\n
defendants are in possession of the plaint schedule property and whether<\/p>\n
the defendants are entitled to realise an amount of Rs. 33,250\/- with<\/p>\n
interest.\n<\/p>\n
       10.    The plaint schedule property in both suits is one and the same.<\/p>\n
The property is 10 of cents of land and a building with 9 rooms and an<\/p>\n
outhouse. The plaint schedule property is        situated near to Kottayam<\/p>\n
town,facing a lane that deviates from the main road. The plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property originally belonged to the 2nd plaintiff and by assignment, his<\/p>\n
son, the 1st plaintiff became the owner of the property vide       settlement<\/p>\n
deed No. 2588\/1979. Ext.A1 is the settlement deed. The building situated<\/p>\n
in the plaint schedule property is occupied by Reshtra Deepika Limited ,<\/p>\n
Kottayam on a rental arrangement from the 1st plaintiff       The rent is Rs.<\/p>\n
3,500.\/- per month      There is a garage in the building below the ground<\/p>\n
level and it is being used as a godown by the Thannickal brothers for a<\/p>\n
monthly rent of Rs. 500\/- The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. According<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs the sale deed No. 2625\/1993 produced, and marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 ( the certified copy of the same was marked as Ext.A4) has not<\/p>\n
been acted upon and never intended to be acted upon and it is vitiated by<\/p>\n
fraud , undue influence and misrepresentation. The main averment in the<\/p>\n
plaint is that Ext.B4 sale deed was executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -9<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant is null and void on the ground that the 1st plaintiff was<\/p>\n
mentally infirm and was not capable of protecting        his interest and it is a<\/p>\n
sham document not supported by consideration. The defendants 1 and 2<\/p>\n
resisted the suit and interalia contended that the 1st plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
mentally infirm and was in sound state of mind and understanding the<\/p>\n
things at the time of of execution of the Ext.B4 sale deed and that it was<\/p>\n
executed by receiving valid consideration of Rs. 1.80 lakhs.<\/p>\n
       11.    The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff was suffering<\/p>\n
from affective disorder and unsoundness of mind due to alcoholism from<\/p>\n
1990 onwards, that he was treated at TRADA an institution where alcoholic<\/p>\n
addicts are treated and he was suffering from affective disorder even<\/p>\n
after discharge from TRADA. After discharge the 1st plaintiff was under<\/p>\n
the treatment of Dr.Radhakrishanan a Psychiatrist (PW4). As PW1 the<\/p>\n
plaintiff testified before the court that he was mentally infirm and was<\/p>\n
incapable of protecting his rights due to his affective disorder at the time of<\/p>\n
executing the sale deed in question and that the document has not been<\/p>\n
acted upon or intended to be acted upon. The 1st plaintiff             tendered<\/p>\n
evidence in terms of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
        12. The 2nd defendant was examined as DW1. He testified before<\/p>\n
the court that PW1 was in a sound state of mind and he was capable of<\/p>\n
understanding the consequences of the execution of Ext.A4 sale deed in<\/p>\n
favour of the 1st defendant and its effects on his rights and it is a valid<\/p>\n
document supported by consideration mentioned in it.<\/p>\n
       13.      PW2 is the father of PW1.    PW5 is the brother of PW2 and<\/p>\n
paternal uncle of PW1. PW4 is Dr. Radhakrishnan, a Psychiatrist. PW3 is<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -10<\/p>\n
a relative of PWs 1 ,2 and       5.    Exts .A2 and A3 are the medical<\/p>\n
certificates issued from TRADA in the name of PW1 and Ext.A5 series are<\/p>\n
the prescriptions issued by PW4 and Exts.A6 to A8 and Exts.X1 to X3 are<\/p>\n
the medical reports produced by PW4.            The trial court relied on the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 and the oral testimony of PW4 who is the          Psychiatrist.<\/p>\n
PW4 has categorically deposed that on 31.8.1993 he had advised PW1,<\/p>\n
his father and the wife of PW1 that PW1 should be kept away from all<\/p>\n
business.     The trial    court found that the said version of PW4 is<\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 . Relying on the testimony of<\/p>\n
PW4, the trial court held that PW1 was not capable of judging the<\/p>\n
consequences of the transactions entered by him during the said period.<\/p>\n
The trial court also held that no concrete evidence has been let in by<\/p>\n
defendants to show that PW1 was not mentally infirm and unsoundness of<\/p>\n
mind as a result of alcoholism at the time when he executed Ext.B4 sale<\/p>\n
deed in favour of the 1st defendant. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the<\/p>\n
trial court concluded that from the evidence on record it is satisfactorily<\/p>\n
established that PW1 was a person suffering from mental disease during<\/p>\n
the period from 31.8.1993 to June 1994, that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4<\/p>\n
and 5 and Exts.A2, A3, A5 to A8 and Exts.X1 to X3 conclusively proved<\/p>\n
that PW1 was an alcoholic and he was                undergoing treatment for<\/p>\n
alcoholism and subsequently he was under the care of PW4 during 1992<\/p>\n
-93.\n<\/p>\n
       14.    It is the case of the 1st plaintiff that he had attended prayer<\/p>\n
meetings during 1992-93 at the residences of Leelamma and Mathew<\/p>\n
Varghese and that DW1 also used to attend prayer meetings. PW1 also<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -11<\/p>\n
testified that Dw1 developed intimacy with him and that he was under<\/p>\n
DW1’s influence. DW1 also admitted that PW1 also attended the said<\/p>\n
prayer meetings but denied the case of the 1st plaintiff that he developed<\/p>\n
an intimacy with PW1 and PW1 was under his influence. The evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1 shows that some         time in July 1993,     there was a proposal to<\/p>\n
purchase an estate at Coorg worth Rs. 67.5 lakhs by a group of persons<\/p>\n
including PW1 and DW1 and his contribution for the proposed purchase<\/p>\n
was Rs. 10 lakhs. According to 1st plaintiff DW1 promised to raise money<\/p>\n
for him provided he executed a sale deed relating to the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property in favour of his wife for the purpose of raising the amount from<\/p>\n
some financiers by creating an equitable mortgage of the property . The<\/p>\n
said allegation was denied by DW1. PW1 testified before the court that he<\/p>\n
believed the representation of DW1 and executed the sale deed in favour<\/p>\n
of his wife for the above said purpose without receiving any consideration.<\/p>\n
The 1st plaintiff  had also deposed that he entrusted three blank signed<\/p>\n
cheques and three blank signed stamped papers with            DW1     for the<\/p>\n
purpose of raising the loan. According to PW1, Ext.B4 sale deed was<\/p>\n
executed     without any intention of transferring the property      and the<\/p>\n
possession of the property continued with PW2 who was receiving the<\/p>\n
rent even after the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed. Relying on the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 and PW2 the trial court concluded that the possession of<\/p>\n
property has not been handed over, no consideration has been paid and<\/p>\n
there was no intention to transfer the property to the defendants and<\/p>\n
further held that the plaintiffs continued to receive the rent of the building<\/p>\n
even after the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed from the 3rd defendant\/ tenant<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -12<\/p>\n
and that the plaintiffs have also created a liability charged upon the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property      with the Syndicate Bank, Kottayam. The court below<\/p>\n
held that the conduct of the defendants in not applying for mutation or<\/p>\n
change of name of the plaintiff in the Municipal records in the name of the<\/p>\n
defendants immediately after the execution of the sale deed in favour of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant shows that aforesaid facts and evidence       supports the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
       15.    In paragraph 17, the trial court discussed        the   further<\/p>\n
allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendants had no means to pay Rs.<\/p>\n
1.80 lakhs as recited in Ext.B4 sale deed. The plaintiffs argued before<\/p>\n
the trial court the the defendants have not explained and proved the<\/p>\n
source for raising Rs.1,80,000\/- and therefore it cannot be held that<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed was supported by consideration. Besides the above<\/p>\n
versions, the court below relied on the version of DW2, the scribe, to the<\/p>\n
effect that he does not know the denomination of the notes given at the<\/p>\n
time of execution of the sale deed. Disbelieving the        versions of   the<\/p>\n
defendants the trial court concluded that there is absolutely no reliable<\/p>\n
evidence on record to show that the defendants had the capacity to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.1.80 lakhs on the date of execution of Ext.B4 sale deed and that they<\/p>\n
have not paid the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed to PW1.<\/p>\n
In the above said circumstances the trial court held that Ext.B4 sale deed<\/p>\n
was not supported by consideration.\n<\/p>\n
       16.    The trial court in paragraph 18 of the judgment, considered the<\/p>\n
point as to who is in possession of the property The trial court had taken<\/p>\n
note of the fact that      admittedly the rent was being paid by the 3rd<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -13<\/p>\n
defendant\/tenant to the plaintiffs after the execution of the sale deed till<\/p>\n
Ext.B12 notice dated       8.7.1994 issued by the 1st defendant to the 3rd<\/p>\n
defendant\/ tenant.       The trial court observed that the failure of the<\/p>\n
defendant to demand       the rent from 3rd defendant after the execution of<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed clearly shows that there was no intention to transfer the<\/p>\n
property. The trial court also held that the possession of building all alone<\/p>\n
continued with the plaintiffs and observed that it is difficult to believe that<\/p>\n
the property fetching a rent of Rs.4,000\/- per month is alleged to have<\/p>\n
been offered to sell for Rs.1.80 lakhs situated     in the heart of Kottayam<\/p>\n
town. Hence       the court below arrived at a conclusion that a reasonable<\/p>\n
man cannot believed for a moment that 10 cents of land with a substantial<\/p>\n
residential building having 9 rooms situated in the heart of Kottayam town<\/p>\n
was sold for a consideration of 1.80 lakhs in the year 1993 and therefore<\/p>\n
the transaction is obviously unconscionable .      The trial court also opined<\/p>\n
that if Ext.B4 sale deed is a genuine document and it was intended to be<\/p>\n
acted upon , the plaintiffs       would not have     discharged the liability<\/p>\n
outstanding with the South Indian Bank . It has come out in evidence that<\/p>\n
there was encumbrance relating to the plaint schedule property with South<\/p>\n
Indian Bank Limited which was cleared by the 2nd plaintiff during February<\/p>\n
1994 and the plaintiffs got back Ext.A1 sale deed from the bank Another<\/p>\n
circumstance relied on, in support of the plaintiffs’ case is that the<\/p>\n
defendants did not effect mutation of the property in the 1st defendant’s<\/p>\n
name for a period of 4 months from the date of execution of the sale deed<\/p>\n
and they also did not apply for change of name in the registers maintained<\/p>\n
by the Municipality till July 1994 . For these reasons the trial court held that<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -14<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed is a sham document and it had been executed without<\/p>\n
any intention to came into effect.\n<\/p>\n
       17.    Next question considered by the court below is whether<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed was executed            under fraud ,undue influence, and<\/p>\n
misrepresentation practised by DW1 on PW1.              The court    below in<\/p>\n
paragraph 20 concluded that the evidence on record clearly shows that<\/p>\n
PW1 was mentally infirm and incapable of protecting his right and was not<\/p>\n
capable of judging the consequences of the transaction entered into by<\/p>\n
him. The court held that it is         satisfactorily established through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW4 that PW1 was suffering from Hypomania and affective<\/p>\n
disorder from 31.8.1993. and continued to be so till 18.12.1993. The trial<\/p>\n
court believed the case set up by the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant was<\/p>\n
in a position to influence the mind of PW1 to take undue advantage on<\/p>\n
the 1st plaintiff and that DW1 influenced PW1         to execute Ext.B4  sale<\/p>\n
deed and the sale deed was executed in the circumstances alleged in the<\/p>\n
plaint. The trial court also observed that no person will sell a property and<\/p>\n
a building fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000\/- for Rs. 1.80 lakhs unless<\/p>\n
he is acting under a delusion and he is not capable of judging the<\/p>\n
consequences of the documents executed by him, The learned sub judge<\/p>\n
in paragraph 20 of the judgment concluded that he has no hesitation to<\/p>\n
hold that Ext.B4 sale deed was executed as a result of undue influence<\/p>\n
exercised on PW1        by DW1 while PW1 was mentally unconscionable<\/p>\n
and weak in mind and was incapable of judging the consequences of the<\/p>\n
execution of the sale deed on account of his absolute faith in DW1 and<\/p>\n
therefore Ext.B4 sale is vitiated by fraud and undue influence.<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999             -15<\/p>\n
      18.      Lastly the court below considered the question as to whether<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed is void abinitio on account of unsoundness of mind of<\/p>\n
PW1     at     the document was executed.       The trial court relied on the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs1, 2, and 4 and Exts A2, A3 and A5 series to conclude<\/p>\n
that PW1 was alcoholic and that he had been admitted in TRADA for<\/p>\n
treatment for alcohlism and was suffering from affective disorder and<\/p>\n
Hypomania from 31.8.1993 to 31.12.1993. The trial court also relied on<\/p>\n
Exts.A8, X1 and X2 to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence the trial court<\/p>\n
concluded       that PW1 is a person of unsound mind and is incapable of<\/p>\n
judging the consequences of the transaction entered by him and hence<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed executed by PW1 during the period of unsoundness of<\/p>\n
mind is void ab initio.\n<\/p>\n
      19.      The learned counsel for the defendants\/appellants in A.S.<\/p>\n
No.251\/1999 contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to<\/p>\n
show that the 1st     plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind at the time of<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B4 and the trial court ought to have held that the same<\/p>\n
was executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant for valid<\/p>\n
consideration.     According to the defendants\/appellants      there was    no<\/p>\n
evidence on record to show that the 1st plaintiff was under the influence of<\/p>\n
alcohol or mentally infirm at the time of execution of the said sale deed. It<\/p>\n
is also contended that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that the<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff is a business man and he was admittedly the Managing partner<\/p>\n
of M\/s Full Bright Electricals from 1990 till December 1994, that he was<\/p>\n
managing the firm till December 1994, and that the 1st plaintiff executed<\/p>\n
the sale deed fully knowing and understanding the contents of the sale<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -16<\/p>\n
deed. According to the defendants\/appellants,       the evidence on record<\/p>\n
positively shows     that the case put forward by the plaintiffs that the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the<\/p>\n
document is only a story cooked up for the purpose of the case and that<\/p>\n
placing reliance by the trial court on the evidence of PWs 2 and PW5 who<\/p>\n
are the father and paternal uncle of PW1 is wrong. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
also pointed out that the trial court wrongly cast the burden of proof on<\/p>\n
the defendants\/appellants by stating that the defendants\/appellants failed<\/p>\n
to prove that the 1st plaintiff was in a sound state of mind at the time of<\/p>\n
execution of the sale deed. According to the learned counsel merely<\/p>\n
because the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant used to attend the prayer<\/p>\n
meetings, no presumption can be drawn that the 2nd defendant is capable<\/p>\n
of dominating the will of the 1st plaintiff and that there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
pleadings or proof to substantiate the contention of undue influence and<\/p>\n
fraud He also drew this Court’s attention to Section 114 of the evidence<\/p>\n
Act and contended that there is a presumption that the person executing<\/p>\n
the document had the full knowledge of the contents of the document<\/p>\n
unless it is proved that the executant is an illiterate person or a person<\/p>\n
disabled from executing the document, that there is a presumption that all<\/p>\n
formalities were properly and regularly done and that it is for the party<\/p>\n
challenging the execution of the particular document to plead and prove<\/p>\n
that fraud had been played on the Sub Registrar. The learned counsel also<\/p>\n
pleaded that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property will fetch more than 1.80 lakhs.<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999               -17<\/p>\n
       20.    Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act deals with test of<\/p>\n
soundness of mind for the purpose of contract. It provides that soundness<\/p>\n
must exist at the time of making of the contract. The said section stipulates<\/p>\n
that when a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making<\/p>\n
a contract if at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it<\/p>\n
and of forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interests.<\/p>\n
Previous or subsequent mental disorder may not be material except to<\/p>\n
create a suspicion of the likelihood of such disorder. The question whether<\/p>\n
a contract is invalidated by unsoundness of mind does not depend merely<\/p>\n
on the belief or disbelief of the witnesses examined before the court but<\/p>\n
largely on the inference to be drawn from the evidence. The allegation of<\/p>\n
unsoundness of mind must be established by proof, showing that the<\/p>\n
person was incapable of understanding the business and of forming a<\/p>\n
rational judgment as to the effect of the transaction on his interests.<\/p>\n
Treatment of mental disorder under the law relating to mental health or a<\/p>\n
finding that the person was incapable of managing property or<\/p>\n
administering his affairs may constitute only prima facie evidence of mental<\/p>\n
disorder.\n<\/p>\n
       21.    It is a fact that the 1st plaintiff is an alcoholic addict and he was<\/p>\n
admitted in TRADA ,a place where alcoholics are treated.                   It is not<\/p>\n
disputed that the 1st plaintiff was subsequently under treatment of PW4 ,<\/p>\n
the Psychiatrist for affective disorder. PW1 deposed that the stamp<\/p>\n
papers are purchased by him and that he paid the fee to the scribe. He<\/p>\n
testified that the 2nd defendant had exerted undue influence over him after<\/p>\n
gaining confidence over him that the 2nd defendant compelled him to<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -18<\/p>\n
execute Ext.B4 sale deed and he executed the sale deed without receiving<\/p>\n
consideration. PW1 again testified that he is the Managing Partner of”Full<\/p>\n
Bright Electricals” and that he was managing the business from 1983 till<\/p>\n
the business was stopped in March 1994. PW1 says that while he was<\/p>\n
managing the affairs of the business till 1993 he used to sign the balance<\/p>\n
sheet, the income tax statement etc and that he used to engage an<\/p>\n
auditor for representing him      before   the income-tax office.    He also<\/p>\n
admitted that he went to the Sub-registrar’s Office for registration of Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed, that the consideration for the sale deed is 1.80 lakhs, that Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed was read over to him and that he understood the contents of the<\/p>\n
sale deed and also       realised the fact that the property is    sold for a<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs. 1.80 lakhs. He also admitted that after understanding<\/p>\n
the contents of Ext.B4 sale deed he had put his signature in the presence<\/p>\n
of the Sub- registrar. A definite question was put to him as to whether<\/p>\n
anybody else compelled him to execute the sale deed he answered that<\/p>\n
he do not know whether the document executed is a sale deed. PW1 also<\/p>\n
deposed that at the time of execution of Ext.B4 sale deed the property was<\/p>\n
under a mortgage with the bank as security. PW1 also testified that he<\/p>\n
had actively participated in the negotiation for the purchase of coffee estate<\/p>\n
at Coorg, that at his instance other persons have        also joined with him<\/p>\n
including DW1 for the purchase, that he held negotiations with the owner<\/p>\n
of the said estate, that he understood that the purchase of the estate is a<\/p>\n
profitable deal and that he was involved through out the negotiation. He<\/p>\n
also admitted that the negotiation and the decision to purchase the estate<\/p>\n
was during July 1993, that mutation and the Municipal assessments were<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999         -19<\/p>\n
changed in the name of the 1st defendant, that he did not pay land tax or<\/p>\n
building tax after the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed and that he did not<\/p>\n
enquire as to who is paying the land tax after the execution of Ext.B4 sale<\/p>\n
deed. PW1 also testified that he did not sent any notice for cancellation of<\/p>\n
the sale deed after the negotiation of the purchase of the estate was failed<\/p>\n
but admitted that he did not complain before the police authorities about<\/p>\n
the foulplay in the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
       22.     PW2 is the father of PW1       He testified that his son was<\/p>\n
suffering from alcoholism and was under treatment at TRADA in 1993 and<\/p>\n
was also suffering from mental disorder and that he has no information<\/p>\n
regarding the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed. He admitted that after the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B4 sale deed he did not remit the building tax and land tax<\/p>\n
and that he never enquired who is making the payment. He also deposed<\/p>\n
that when he approached the revenue authorities to pay the building tax<\/p>\n
and rent tax they informed him that receipts would be given only in the<\/p>\n
name of 1st defendant. PW3 who claims to be one of the mediators, also<\/p>\n
supported the contentions of the plaintiffs to a certain extent.<\/p>\n
       23.     PW4 is Dr. Radhakrishnan, the Psychiatrist. Ext.X1 is the<\/p>\n
case sheet in the name of the 1st plaintiff maintained in his clinic. As per<\/p>\n
Ext.X1, the treatment started from 2.8.1993. According to him, PW1 was in<\/p>\n
a hypomania stage, that the patient has euphoric affects and that he was<\/p>\n
not capable of judging the consequences of acts done by him. Ext.A2 is<\/p>\n
the medical certificate issued by PW4 and Ext.A5 is the prescription. He<\/p>\n
testified that on   9.9.1993 on examination of PW1          he noted that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s sleep was improved and his appetite interaction bettered , that on<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -20<\/p>\n
20.9.1993 when PW4 attended the 1st plaintiff, he was keeping sober and<\/p>\n
explained a lot about his business plans, that PW4 advised PW1’s father<\/p>\n
and wife to restrict the business activities of PW1, that on 7.9.1993 the<\/p>\n
patient had euphoric infection and therefore he increased the dosage of<\/p>\n
medicine. During cross-examination PW4 testified that the 1st plaintiff was<\/p>\n
not capable of making any contracts during the treatment period and that<\/p>\n
as   part of hypomania the patient will increase sociability. PW4 also<\/p>\n
deposed that hypomania is an unsound state of mind and all psychic<\/p>\n
patients will come under the term hypomania. To a definite question put<\/p>\n
to him as to whether during 7.9.1993 to 20.11.1993 the 1st plaintiff was<\/p>\n
capable of judging the transactions entered with others, PW4 answered<\/p>\n
that the patient may have difficulties. Another question put to PW4 that is<\/p>\n
it correct to say that the 1st plaintiff was discharged from TRADA after<\/p>\n
completely cured. PW4’s answer was ‘yes’. PW4 also stated that euphoria<\/p>\n
is a feeling of emotional and physical well-being, that it is not indicative of<\/p>\n
mental disorder always. He also admitted that even if a patient is affected<\/p>\n
with depression and mania there may be lucid intervals, that lucid intervals<\/p>\n
can be ascertained from the conduct, behaviour and activities of the<\/p>\n
patient. PW4 also admitted that during the period of lucid intervals the<\/p>\n
patient may be normal and he can take decision knowing its consequences<\/p>\n
To another question put to him as to whether the 1st plaintiff has a lucid<\/p>\n
interval between 7.9.1993 and 20.9.1993, PW4 answered that he cannot<\/p>\n
say whether there was any lucid intervals and usually he do not investigate<\/p>\n
the aspect of lucid intervals during the treatment period of the patient.<\/p>\n
PW4 also testified that if a person is affected with hypomania he can act<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -21<\/p>\n
effectively and successfully.\n<\/p>\n
       24.    The evidence of PW1, PW2 (the 1st plaintiff’s father) PW5<\/p>\n
(brother of PW2)       and PW4 ( the psychiatrist)   and the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence viz. Exts. A2 and A3 medical certificates, Exts. A5 to A8 and<\/p>\n
Ext.X1 to X3 reveals that PW1 was an alcoholic and he had undergone<\/p>\n
treatment for alcoholism and he was under the treatment of PW4 during<\/p>\n
1993. The question is whether the evidence recorded and relied on by the<\/p>\n
trial court establishes that PW1 is a person suffering from mental disorder<\/p>\n
on the date of execution of Ext.B4 sale deed, or not.\n<\/p>\n
       25.    PW1 is aged 35 during 1997. He is a B.sc degree holder.<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 sale deed was executed on 17.9.1993 During the said period PW1<\/p>\n
was carrying on his business activities as the Managing Partner of “Full<\/p>\n
Bright Electricals ” He has no case that he was not running the business<\/p>\n
due to any mental disorder. I have already referred to his own versions as<\/p>\n
PW1      testifying that that he was doing all activities in relation to his<\/p>\n
business such as financial transactions, filing of returns, engaging the<\/p>\n
auditor etc till the business was stopped in March 1994. PW1       admitted<\/p>\n
that he had taken initiative for the purchase of a coffee estate at Coorg<\/p>\n
with 10 persons including DW1. According to PW1, he, DW1 and others<\/p>\n
had planned to purchase the estate at Coorg and the decision was taken in<\/p>\n
July 1993. The estate is having an extent of 181 acres. The purchase<\/p>\n
price was fixed at 67.5 lakhs It is stated by PW1 that the sale deed was<\/p>\n
intended to be registered in October 1993. PW1 testified that on further<\/p>\n
enquiry he found that the vendor has no saleable interest in the property<\/p>\n
and therefore the said proposal was dropped in a few months. It is very<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -22<\/p>\n
important to note that the sale deed was executed on 17.9.1993. He has<\/p>\n
no case that the said project was cancelled as on 17.9.1993. The 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case is that   the sale deed was executed for the purpose of<\/p>\n
raising his share of money for the purchase of estate at Coorg.         It is not<\/p>\n
explained by PW1 that for what reason Ext.B4 sale deed was executed in<\/p>\n
favour of the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd defendant, at the<\/p>\n
negotiation stage before a decision is taken as to whether the estate can be<\/p>\n
purchased or not. If PW1 wanted to raise Rs.10 lakhs, the amount can be<\/p>\n
raised by availing loan from the bank. It is not known the intention behind<\/p>\n
the execution of Ext.B4 document by PW1 in favour of DW1 for the<\/p>\n
purpose of raising Rs.10 lakhs. Moreover, the negotiation for purchase of<\/p>\n
the estate continued after September 1993. If that be so, there is no<\/p>\n
reason as to why the sale deed was executed without                knowing the<\/p>\n
outcome of the negotiations. According to PW1 the negotiation fails and<\/p>\n
the project did not materialise, if that be the position nothing prevented the<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff from demanding re-conveyance of the property and to get re-<\/p>\n
conveyance if the property was conveyed for the reasons stated by him.<\/p>\n
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs only after the suit for injunction as O.S.<\/p>\n
No. 561\/1994 was filed by the vendee and on receiving notice in the said<\/p>\n
suit. From the evidence on record it has to be inferred that the story of<\/p>\n
negotiation for the purchase of an estate is an afterthought and is pleaded<\/p>\n
to suit the pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
       26.     The 2nd defendant was examined as DW1. According to DW1<\/p>\n
he got acquaintance with PW1 while PW1 attended the prayer meetings.<\/p>\n
It is not in evidence as to how many days both of them attended prayer<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -23<\/p>\n
meetings together. DW1 is aged 39 during 1997 and PW1 is aged 35.<\/p>\n
DW1 has no contact with PW1 before he met PW1 at the prayer meeting<\/p>\n
held in one or two houses of the believers. Even though PW1 averred that<\/p>\n
the relationship grew and he treated DW1 as his “Guru” in almost all<\/p>\n
matters, DW1 denied the said averment. Both PW1 and DW1 are middle<\/p>\n
aged men. It is not revealed as to how the relationship grew to a stage of<\/p>\n
Guru-Disciple relationship. DW1 also denied the said allegations in the<\/p>\n
plaint. No materials are before the court below to accept the plaintiff’s case<\/p>\n
that the relationship between PW1 and DW1 has reached such a stage<\/p>\n
and DW1 was capable of exerting undue influence on PW1.              DW1 has<\/p>\n
stated that PW1 was not mentally firm and was of sound state of mind and<\/p>\n
was capable of understanding the consequences of execution of Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed and its effects on his rights and that Ext.B4 is a valid document<\/p>\n
supported by the consideration . From the facts proved it can be         safely<\/p>\n
inferred that PW1 and DW1 are friends at the time of execution of Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
       27.    DW2 is M.K. Gopidas who is the scribe of Ext.B4 sale deed .<\/p>\n
He testified that before the preparation of Ext.B4 sale deed the document<\/p>\n
was read over to PW1, that all the details necessary for the preparation of<\/p>\n
the sale deed was furnished by PW1, that he behaved like a normal<\/p>\n
person, that he did notice any dysfunction or difficulty in PW1 and PW1<\/p>\n
receiving the sale consideration from DW1.      DW2 also     deposed that as<\/p>\n
scribe he was having 22 years of experience. He testified that before the<\/p>\n
preparation of original of Ext.B4, a draft sale deed was prepared. He also<\/p>\n
testified that PW1 said that original title deed was lost, in that situation he<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -24<\/p>\n
had prepared Ext.B4 sale deed after verifying the photocopy of the<\/p>\n
original title deed and said      that    he had applied and received the<\/p>\n
encumbrance certificate .\n<\/p>\n
       27.    PW5 testified that PW1 is an alcoholic addict and            has<\/p>\n
undergone treatment for mental disorder under PW4, that plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is worth Rs. 10 lakhs in 1993, that the property is situated in the<\/p>\n
heart of Kottayam town and that Ext.A9 property and the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property have equal importance. He also deposed that PW1 has started<\/p>\n
“Full Bright Electricals” and managed the business from 1990 till its<\/p>\n
closure. He supported the contention of the 1st plaintiff regarding the<\/p>\n
negotiation for the purchase of the coffee estate at Coorg             and the<\/p>\n
subsequent events.\n<\/p>\n
       28.    3rd defendant is the tenant.      He deposed that PW1 was<\/p>\n
conducting “Full Bright Electricals” in the plaint schedule property, that PW1<\/p>\n
was running the said business and that the 3rd defendant was paying rent<\/p>\n
regularly by issuing cheques.\n<\/p>\n
       29.    According to   PW1 he was suffering from alcoholism and he<\/p>\n
was treated at TRADA de-addiction centre from 1991. In August 1993 he<\/p>\n
started treatment for affective disorder with PW4 Psychiatrist. Ext.X1 is the<\/p>\n
case sheet produced by PW4, shows that PW1’s treatment started only<\/p>\n
from 2.8.1993. Ext.B4 sale deed was executed on 17.9.1993. The relevant<\/p>\n
portion of PW4’s testimony is referred supra.        PW4 testified that PW1<\/p>\n
was not abnormal in his business activities. PW4 never advised PW1 not<\/p>\n
to involve in business transaction and that is also an indication that the<\/p>\n
affective disorder for which he was treated during the relevant         period<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -25<\/p>\n
does not prevent the 1st plaintiff from doing normal business activities.<\/p>\n
PW4 further stated that PW1 was capable of making contracts during the<\/p>\n
treatment period and he may have proper decision making capacity. To the<\/p>\n
specific question put to PW4 as to whether during 7.9.1993 to 20.11.1993<\/p>\n
PW1     was capable of judging the transaction entered with others, he<\/p>\n
answered that the patient may have difficulties. PW4 also         testified that<\/p>\n
the patient may be absolutely normal at lucid intervals and that whether a<\/p>\n
patient is normal or not can be ascertained from the conduct, behaviour<\/p>\n
and activities of the patient. Lastly, PW4 testified that even in cases a<\/p>\n
patient is affected with hypomania he can act effectively and successfully.<\/p>\n
      30.     Going by the versions of PW4 , it cannot be said that PW1<\/p>\n
was in a state of unsound mind       on the date of execution of Ext.B4 sale<\/p>\n
deed. At the instance and instructions of PW1 draft sale deed was drafted,<\/p>\n
PW1 straightaway went to the scribe’s office, read and understood the<\/p>\n
contents of Ext.B4 sale deed and then went to the Sub-Registrar’s office.<\/p>\n
There again the Sub-registrar read over the contents of Ext.B4 sale deed<\/p>\n
and PW1 understood the contents. PW1 deposed that DW2, the scribe,<\/p>\n
had used to prepare documents for his family members. That is also an<\/p>\n
indication of the     fact that the scribe is not a stranger to the 1st plaintiff,<\/p>\n
who was engaged in the preparation of Ext.B4 sale deed.            The scribe<\/p>\n
himself as DW2      testified that the necessary details for the preparation<\/p>\n
of Ext.B4 was dictated by PW1 and the said testimony is also worthy to<\/p>\n
mention.\n<\/p>\n
      31.     For the purpose of examining the validity of Ext.B4 sale deed<\/p>\n
the question to be examined is whether the person who executed the sale<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -26<\/p>\n
deed is capable of understanding it and is of forming a rational judgment<\/p>\n
as to its effects upon his interest. There is no concrete evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the 1st plaintiff or his witnesses which will go to show that PW1 was not<\/p>\n
in a state of sound mind on the date of execution of Ext.B4sale deed or on<\/p>\n
previous days or subsequent days of execution.          At the same time the<\/p>\n
evidence on record clearly shows that PW1 was acting as a sound-minded<\/p>\n
person during the period of execution of Ext.B4 The oral evidence of PW4<\/p>\n
also does not show that PW1 is a person of unsound mind. The evidence<\/p>\n
utmost shows that PW1 was suffering from some mental dysfunction.<\/p>\n
PW4 stated that he can carry on his business activities as a normal man.<\/p>\n
PW4 also testified that the disorder noticed by him is not a disorder of<\/p>\n
permanent nature. The disorder noticed is temporary and subsequently he<\/p>\n
is normal in all his activities.      So the     hypomania diognised by the<\/p>\n
Psychiatrist(PW4) is not enough to conclude that the 1st plaintiff is<\/p>\n
incapable of executing a document without understanding its contents and<\/p>\n
not capable of       forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his<\/p>\n
interest.  The other circumstances which also leads to such a conclusion<\/p>\n
are that the plaintiff did not examine any witness or witnesses to support<\/p>\n
his case of mental incapacity as on the date of execution of Ext.B4 nor<\/p>\n
PW1 has a case that he had consumed liquor on that date.<\/p>\n
       32.    Section 35(2)      of the Registration Act stipulates that the<\/p>\n
Registering officer may in order to satisfy         himself that the persons<\/p>\n
appearing before him are the persons they themselves to be, or for any<\/p>\n
other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his<\/p>\n
office. Section 35(3) (b) provides that if any such person appears to the<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -27<\/p>\n
registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic and (c) provides that if<\/p>\n
any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and<\/p>\n
his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer<\/p>\n
shall refuse to register the document as to the           persons so denying,<\/p>\n
appearing or dead:\n<\/p>\n
      33.     Section    67 of the Registration Act        mandates that the<\/p>\n
registering officer is bound to consider the objection raised on any of the<\/p>\n
grounds stated below.\n<\/p>\n
      (a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not<\/p>\n
          the persons they profess to be;\n<\/p>\n
      (b) that the document is forged;\n<\/p>\n
      (c) that the person appearing as a representative assign or agent<\/p>\n
           has no right to appear in that capacity<\/p>\n
      (d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party<\/p>\n
           applying for registration;or<\/p>\n
       (e) that the executing party is minor or an idiot or a lunatic<\/p>\n
      34.     At no point of time PW1 or his father or wife raised any<\/p>\n
objection before any authority complaining the registration of Ext.B4<\/p>\n
document due to any of the above reasons.\n<\/p>\n
      35.     Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act provides that in case of<\/p>\n
drunkenness or delirium from fever or other causes, the onus lies on the<\/p>\n
party who sets up that disability to prove that it existed at the time of the<\/p>\n
contract The questions of undue influence and of incapacity by reason of<\/p>\n
unsoundness of mind must not be mixed up,           as they do totally different<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -28<\/p>\n
issues. The understanding of a party to a contract required to uphold the<\/p>\n
validity of transaction would depend on the nature of the transaction. It is<\/p>\n
also stated     therein that an instrument of conveyance executed by a<\/p>\n
person incapable of understanding its effect, in the sense of its general<\/p>\n
purport, is not on that account void though in the circumstances it may be<\/p>\n
voidable by the conveyor or his representatives.\n<\/p>\n
       36.    In  the    decision   reported   in  Mt.Hasrabi    &     others\n\nVs.Mt.Fatmabi AIR 1938 Nagpur 204,          it was held that registration is a\n\n<\/pre>\n
solemn act, if there is a registration endorsement it shows that necessary<\/p>\n
formalities required by law have been complied with. Consequently where<\/p>\n
the effect of document registered is sought to be avoided by the party<\/p>\n
executing the same by pleading insanity at the time of execution of the<\/p>\n
same, the registration endorsement cannot be discarded or ignored in<\/p>\n
deciding the issue about the mental condition of the party when the deed<\/p>\n
was executed .\n<\/p>\n
       37.    In Jai Narain and others Ve Mahabir Prasad and another<\/p>\n
AIR 1926 Oudh 470 the Division Bench held that although an executant<\/p>\n
of a deed might have been drinking hard and frequently of unsober and<\/p>\n
unsound mind, yet it must be established that at the time when the deed<\/p>\n
was executed he was of unsound mind.\n<\/p>\n
       38.    In A.Pathu and others Vs. Khadeesa Umma and others<\/p>\n
1990 (2) KLJ 115 it was held that there is the           presumption under<\/p>\n
Section114 of the Evidence Act that a person only puts signature in a<\/p>\n
document in token of execution.           Ordinarily, persons   do not sign<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -29<\/p>\n
documents without intending        to execute them. That is    the  common<\/p>\n
course of human conduct or the common course of their public or private<\/p>\n
business. If any person wants to rely on any special circumstance, which<\/p>\n
abrogates the common course of public or private business; he must<\/p>\n
allege and prove it for the purpose of shifting the burden.<\/p>\n
       39.    The trial court in paragraph 17 of its judgment considered the<\/p>\n
question as to whether the defendants have the means to pay Rs. 1.80<\/p>\n
lakhs as recited in Ext.B4 sale deed and held that there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
reliable evidence on record to show that the defendants in O.S No.<\/p>\n
629\/1994 were having an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs with them on the<\/p>\n
date of execution of Ext.B4 sale deed and therefore concluded that Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed is not supported by consideration. In paragraph 18, the trial<\/p>\n
court also discussed      the    adequacy    of    consideration for the sale<\/p>\n
transaction and held that the property is situated in the heart of Kottayam<\/p>\n
town, that the building in the property fetched rental value of Rs. 4,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month and therefore the transaction is obviously unconscionable In this<\/p>\n
context.\n<\/p>\n
       40.     Section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act is relevant for<\/p>\n
consideration. Section 16(3) is extracted as follows:<\/p>\n
             (3)” where a person who is in a position to dominate<\/p>\n
      the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the<\/p>\n
      transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence<\/p>\n
      adduced, to be unconscionable , the burden of proving that<\/p>\n
      such contract was not induced by undue influence shall be<\/p>\n
      upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the<\/p>\n
      other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999           -30<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      41.     Two factors must be proved for the operation of subsection (3)<\/p>\n
of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. First is that a person was in a<\/p>\n
position to dominate the will of another and secondly the transaction<\/p>\n
appears on the face of it or on the evidence adduced to be unconscionable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
If either of these two conditions are not fulfilled the presumption of undue<\/p>\n
influence will not arise and the burden will not shift; and proof of the actual<\/p>\n
use of the dominating position will be required.\n<\/p>\n
          42. In this case PW1 and DW1 are strangers to each other. The<\/p>\n
only acquaintance pleaded in the plaint is that they were made known to<\/p>\n
each other at the prayer meeting occasions. I have already stated that it is<\/p>\n
not proved in this case that DW1 is in a position to dominate the will of<\/p>\n
PW1, in order to use that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the<\/p>\n
other. Apart from the bald averments in the plaint there is nothing on<\/p>\n
record to show that DW1 is in a position to dominate the will of PW1, at<\/p>\n
the same time the evidence on record shows that PW1 executed Ext.B4<\/p>\n
sale deed at a time when he is in a sound state of mind. The second limb<\/p>\n
of Section 16(3) is not attracted in the context that the first limb stands not<\/p>\n
proved.    On merit also the     second limb under Section 16(3) is         not<\/p>\n
attracted in this case. There is no evidence on record to show that the<\/p>\n
transaction appears on the face of it or on evidence adduced to be<\/p>\n
unconscionable. It has come out in evidence that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is not facing any main road. The property is facing a lane which<\/p>\n
leads from the main road. It is not correct to say that the property is located<\/p>\n
in the heart of Kottayam town. 10 cents of land and an old building is the<\/p>\n
subject matter of the suit. The transaction took place during 1993. So it<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -31<\/p>\n
cannot be said      that there is   evidence to    show that the transaction<\/p>\n
appears on the face of it or on evidence to be unconscionable . The oral<\/p>\n
interested testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is that the property is worth more<\/p>\n
than 10 lakhs. But there is no evidence to prove that the property fetches<\/p>\n
such value. The market value of the property was fixed at Rs. 1,05,580\/-<\/p>\n
in the plaint for  the purpose of valuation of the plaint. Ext.A9 sale deed<\/p>\n
was relied on by the court below for concluding that the transaction is<\/p>\n
obviously unconscionable. Neither the vendor nor the vendee of Ext.A9<\/p>\n
sale deed was examined. The exact location of Ext.A9 property is not<\/p>\n
known nor the circumstances that lead to the execution of Ext.A9 sale<\/p>\n
deed . It is not known whether Ext.A9 property is facing the main road in<\/p>\n
the Kottayam town or not.       The question of unconscionableness of the<\/p>\n
transaction arises only when a transaction was carried out at the instance<\/p>\n
of a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another. The<\/p>\n
relationship of PW1 and DW1 are not in such a way that one of the<\/p>\n
parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and to use that<\/p>\n
position to obtain an unfair advantage from the other. In a case where<\/p>\n
one person who uses his dominant position to obtain an unfair advantage<\/p>\n
over the other, Section 16(c) provides that the burden of proving that<\/p>\n
such contract was induced by undue influence shall be upon the person<\/p>\n
in a position to dominate the will of the other. Section 16(3) speaks about<\/p>\n
the burden of proof. The question whether the transaction is<\/p>\n
unconscionable or not      depends firstly upon      the person who is in a<\/p>\n
dominant position over the other.        Here the relationship   between the<\/p>\n
parties to contract is not of confidential or fiduciary nature . PW1 is not an<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -32<\/p>\n
illiterate or a weak-minded person at the relevant period. He was the<\/p>\n
managing partner of a business firm . He himself has deposed that he was<\/p>\n
managing the affairs of the firm. Neither the plaintiff nor his witness has a<\/p>\n
case that the 1st plaintiff is of unsound mind in every activity other than<\/p>\n
the    execution    of   the   Ext.B4    sale   deed.     The    question  of<\/p>\n
unconscionableness comes for consideration only when it is determined<\/p>\n
that the relationship between the parties is in such a way that one is in a<\/p>\n
position to dominate the will of the other and not other wise. In this case<\/p>\n
the relationship between the parties is not like the nature pleaded by the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff.  So long as there is no such relationship the question of<\/p>\n
unconscionableness did not come for consideration Moreover there is no<\/p>\n
evidence to prove that the transaction in dispute is unconscionable for any<\/p>\n
reasons, hence the reasons stated by the trial court are untenable.<\/p>\n
        43.   The findings of the trial court that no consideration has been<\/p>\n
paid on the execution of Ext.B4 sale deed and PW1 had no intention to<\/p>\n
transfer the plaint schedule property to the defendants in O.S. No.<\/p>\n
629\/1999 nor the defendants have any intention to purchase the property<\/p>\n
and therefore Ext.B4 sale deed is a sham document and it had been<\/p>\n
executed without any intention to come into effect are unsustainable in<\/p>\n
law and facts. DW1 testified the fact that the property is occupied by a<\/p>\n
tenant, that the property is in his possession and his wife after the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B4 sale deed and that PW1 handed over the copy of the<\/p>\n
settlement deed, No.2588\/1979 (prior title deed), the property tax receipt<\/p>\n
for the year 1993-94 encumbrance Certificate etc. Ext.B5 is the said<\/p>\n
settlement deed and Ext.B6 is the tax receipt for the period 1993-94.<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999            -33\n\nAccording to defendants       the property was mutated in the name of the 1st\n\n<\/pre>\n
defendant after the execution of the sale deed . Ext.B8 Pokkuvaravu<\/p>\n
receipt shows that      requisite fee was remitted for mutation proceedings.<\/p>\n
Ext.B9 is the receipt for payment of property tax and Exts.B10 and B11<\/p>\n
are Certificate issued by Kottayam Municipality and the building tax receipt<\/p>\n
during the year 1993-94. The encumbrance certificate shows that the<\/p>\n
property is free from encumbrance. . DW1 also deposed that PW1 agreed<\/p>\n
to evict the tenant within six months from the date of the Ext.B4        sale<\/p>\n
deed and this is also one of the reason why the rent was agreed to be<\/p>\n
collected   by the plaintiffs for    6 months and agreed       to pay to the<\/p>\n
defendants. DW1 also testified that he has collected the income from the<\/p>\n
coconut trees standing in the property. In such circumstances the finding<\/p>\n
by the trial court to the effect that no consideration has been paid on the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B4 sale deed, that the said sale deed is a sham document<\/p>\n
and that Ext.B4 had been executed without any intention to come into<\/p>\n
effect are unsustainable in law and facts.\n<\/p>\n
       44.    The trial court also held that Ext.B4 sale deed was executed as<\/p>\n
a result of undue influence exercised over PW1 by DW1, and PW1 was<\/p>\n
mentally unconscionable and weak in mind and was not capable of judging<\/p>\n
the consequences of the execution of the sale deed and on account of his<\/p>\n
absolute faith in DW1. Therefore, the court below held that Ext.B4 sale<\/p>\n
deed is vitiated by fraud and undue influence. I have gone through<\/p>\n
paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint. The averments are to the effect<\/p>\n
that the 1st plaintiff was not capable of judging the consequences of the<\/p>\n
execution of document and of forming a rational judgment as to its<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -34<\/p>\n
effects on his interest. The further material averment in the plaint is that<\/p>\n
the 1st plaintiff was alcoholic and of unsound mind and the 2nd defendant<\/p>\n
was in a position to take undue advantage over the 1st plaintiff. I have<\/p>\n
already found that the relationship of the parties is in such a way that one<\/p>\n
is not in a position to dominate the will of the other and therefore PW1 is<\/p>\n
not under such influence of DW1. PW1 failed to prove that DW1 is in a<\/p>\n
position    to influence PW1 nor there is evidence to prove that the<\/p>\n
relationship is in such a way that DW1 is in a position to exercise undue<\/p>\n
influence over PW1. It is for the 1st plaintiff to prove that there is influence<\/p>\n
and that such influence is undue in the language of law. The principle can<\/p>\n
be applied only in a case where the influence is acquired and abused,<\/p>\n
where confidence is repossessed and better” .\n<\/p>\n
       45.    On an appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the<\/p>\n
decrees and judgments passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
It has also come out in evidence that the defendants have no house of<\/p>\n
their own. It is natural that the defendants have decided to purchase the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property. The building stands in the property according to<\/p>\n
DW1 is 60 years old. The property is lying by the side of a narrow line.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence to show that the transaction is unconscionable.<\/p>\n
Moreover the said question does not arise for consideration. It is evident<\/p>\n
from the above facts and circumstances that the relationship of the parties<\/p>\n
is  normal, that PW1 was not mentally infirm and was not incapable of<\/p>\n
protecting his rights, that PW1 was capable of judging the consequences of<\/p>\n
the transaction entered by him      during the relevant period         and was<\/p>\n
capable of forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interest.<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999          -35<\/p>\n
This Court is of the firm view that Ext.B4 sale deed executed in favour of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant is a valid document.\n<\/p>\n
       46.    In the result, the judgments and decrees passed by the trial<\/p>\n
court are set aside. O.S. 629\/1994 is dismissed O.S No. 561\/1994 is<\/p>\n
allowed A decree for perpetual injunction is passed restraining the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant in O.S. No. 561\/1994 from trespassing into the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs therein. The 2nd defendant is directed to attorn         rent to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffsin O.S. No. 561\/1994 if he is still in possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
the building as a tenant. The plaintiffs are allowed to realise Rs. 33,250\/-<\/p>\n
with interest at 6% from the date of suit till realisation from the 1st defendant<\/p>\n
and his assets. O.S No. 561\/1994 is decreed with costs throughout. A.S.<\/p>\n
No. 250\/1999 and A.S No. 251\/1999 are allowed with costs.<\/p>\n
                                    (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
es.\n<\/p>\n
A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999    -36\n\n\n\n\n                                HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n\n                                      ---------------------------\n                                  A.S. Nos. 250 & 251 of 1999\n                                     ----------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                           JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                                     1st September, 2009\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 250 of 1999(Y) 1. IVY ABRAHAM … Petitioner Vs 1. ITTY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :06\/10\/2009 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIvy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"53 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":10489,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"53 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":10489,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009","name":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T14:32:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ivy-abraham-vs-itty-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ivy Abraham vs Itty on 6 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}