SASIDHARAN @ SASIKUMAR Vs. ABRAHAM K. ISSAC @ RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S. No. 172/1993. The suit is one for setting aside document No. 3475/1993 on the ground of fraud or coercion for want of consideration as it has not come into effect and for consequential injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and it is against that decision, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) HEARD . The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows: The plaintiff and defendant became partners in the sense that they were jointly dealing with the business of procuring visa for the interested persons. The plaintiff was formerly employed in Gulf country as a carpenter and in 1992 he became back to India and thereafter had association with the defendant and they were doing the business with the connection at Bombay. They were unable to procure some visa due to Bombay blast and rebellion. There was delay in the matter and so the plaintiff was informed on 21.4.1993 to come to Kerala with the passport as some processing has to be done for the purpose of visa. Accordingly on 25.4.1993 he landed at Angamaly, took a taxi and was proceeding to his residence. He was waylaid by the henchmen of the defendant and was forcibly taken to the office of the defendant and later to Matha Tourist Home where he had been threatened and manhandled and ultimately forced to sign a document which is the subject matter of the suit. It is submitted that the document is made to be executed against his will and it is vitiated by fraud, coercion and also lack of consideration.

(3.) IN the trial court P Ws 1 to 11 were examined, Exts.A1 to A7, B1, C1, C1(a) and X1 to X2(a) were marked. Let me first state about the principles to be followed in such cases. Here is a case of document being vitiated by fraud or coercion. It is the settled principle of law that if a person pleads fraud or coercion, he has to prove the same unless one is coming within the exempted category of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act. Here there is no case that the defendant was in possession to dominate the Will of the plaintiff or was under the control of the defendant so as to attract Section 111. So having admitted the execution of the document, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the vitiating circumstances to invalidate the document.