IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 473 of 1996(PAUPER) ----------------------------- OS.61/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT(S): ----------------- MUHAMMED, S/O. KATHIRU, ULAKKARA, MUKKOTTATHILPARAMBIL, KAPPRASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE (NOW DESOM VILLAGE). BY ADV. SRI. V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.JIJIMOL VADAKKEN DEFENDNAT/RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- AL.AMEEN, S/O. PATTATHU JAINU, PUTHUVASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANADU, ALUAV. ADV. SRI.K.V.AUGUSTINE, SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.473 of 1996-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that two registered documents shown to have been executed by him are unenforceable on the ground that they were got executed having the plaintiff under the influence of alcohol and ganja. The pleading of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the defendant and that borrowal was supported by a demand promissory note; later, when the plaintiff borrowed a further sum of Rs.10,000/-, the defendant wanted the plaintiff to execute a mortgage in support of the loan and therefore, the plaintiff entrusted title deeds of AS473/1996 -: 2 :- his property to the defendant, who abused such custody and got two documents drafted as sale deeds instead of mortgages; that the prior documents were entrusted to the defendant on 24.10.1986 and the defendant took the plaintiff to the Sub Registrar's office on 27.10.1986 after providing the plaintiff liquor and ganja which weakness of the plaintiff was known to the defendant. He thereafter pleads that on 27.10.1986, two documents were got signed by him and the defendant took over possession of the properties, including that of the plaintiff's wife. He further pleaded that on 25.6.1987, certain other documents were also got executed by the plaintiff also. However, the plaint is conspicuously silent about any of the material particulars regarding the alleged exercise of any vitiating element that could be noticed by courts. We would recall the judgment of the Apex Court in Bishudeo v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280 in which it was specifically laid down as a principle of law that though plea of undue AS473/1996 -: 3 :- influence and coercion may overlap in part in some cases, they are separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded; and in the case of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. The Apex Court categorically laid down that there can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. 2.With the aforesaid rule of pleading in mind and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence adduced in this case, we notice that the formidable obstacle for the plaintiff is the fact that he filed Ext.B3 suit earlier before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva in relation to another item of property and in that suit, he stated AS473/1996 -: 4 :- specifically about the sales which are impunged in the present suit. At that point of time, he had no complaint whatsoever about the impugned transactions. With this, we notice that Ext.B4 sale deed no.3401 and Ext.B1 sale deed no.3402 are shown to have been registered on 27.10.1986. The registration is admitted. No steps whatsoever are taken to dislodge the presumptions as to the regularity and propriety of the registration which is a statutory and official function. The registering authority has not been cited or summoned as witness. There are attesting witnesses. None has been summoned. A person who is shown to be a scribe of this document was summoned. He came to the Court essentially to speak falsehood. This is apparent from a reading of his testimony as P.W.2. His denial of having scripted the document has essentially to be disbelieved. The plaintiff then attempted to obtain the assistance of P.W.3, a brother of the defendant, who was not on cordial terms with the defendant for nearly 10 years. P.W.4 was examined AS473/1996 -: 5 :- only to speak about the collection of usufructs from the property. The materials on record in the form of testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 do not, in any manner, inspire confidence in the mind of the Court or even provide the basic legal evidence to support the plaint claim. Not only that, as already noted, the plaintiff had no answer or explanation whatsoever to the situation he faced when Ext.B3 plaint in the earlier suit was put to him. 3.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error in the findings of facts or law or in the appreciation of evidence by the court below. 4.In the result, the appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Being a matter in which the plaintiff has filed this appeal as an indigent, it is ordered that the court fee shall be payable by the plaintiff- AS473/1996 -: 6 :- appellant and the concerned District Collector will take appropriate action for recovery of the same in accordance with law. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1706 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.