There has been total misrepresentation with respect to title over disputed property.

1. Civil Suit 404 of 2006 was filed by Subramanyan and Company against Chitra Construction Private Limited and G. Govindarajan seeking permanent injunction and Civil Suit 391 of 2006 was filed by Chitra Construction Private Limited as against S.Subramanyan and Company and its six Partners seeking permanent injunction. On the basis of a compromise memo filed by both the parties, the suit filed by Chitra Construction Private Limited was dismissed as withdrawn and the suit in C.S. No. 404 of 2006 was decreed in terms of the compromise memo.

2. Application No. 5002 of 2007 in C.S. No. 404 of 2006 is filed seeking to set aside the compromise decree passed in C.S. No. 404 of 2006 on 23.2.2007 as null and void and Application No. 5003 of 2007 in C.S. No. 391 of 2006 is filed seeking to set aside the compromise memo and restore the suit in C.S. No. 391 of 2006 by recalling the order dated 23.2.2007 passed therein. Similar averments are found in both the applications. Necessary material facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of these applications found therein are as follows:

(i) The applicant is a Private Limited Company carrying on business in investment and construction and property development. The first respondent is a partnership firm consisting of six partners. The. first respondent represented to the applicant that they are the owners of an extent of 2.53 acres of vacant land comprised in T.S. Nos. 1 and 3 situated at Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. They also informed the applicant that T.S. Nos. 1 and 3 were in one block.

(ii) After discussion and negotiation, the applicant entered into an oral agreement with S. Subramanyan & Company on 20.12.2005 for purchase of the aforesaid property from the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 25.3 crore and paid a, sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- in cash to Mr. S. Ramamurthy who received the said amount on behalf of other partners.

(iii) The applicants, thereafter, engaged the service of professional like Architects and Engineers for expert opinion. The applicants have spent a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-in that regard. Planning permission also was sought from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by the said S. Ramamurthy representing the respondent-partnership firm. In the said application, the applicant Company was referred as the Developer. Mr. Ramamurthy also applied to the Airports Authority of India for NOC for construction of a multi-storied building. The applicants were all along under the impression that the entire extent of the properties of 2.53 acres were comprised only in T.S. Nos. 1 and 3 and they never knew that a survey number fell in between.

(iv) Subsequently, an agreement of sale was executed oh 2.2.2006 by and between the applicant company and the respondent partnership firm. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 25,30,000/-. A sum of Rs. 24 lakhs was paid to the said Ramamurthy over and above the sum of Rs. l,05,00,000/- which was paid earlier by cash. As per the terms of the agreement, two months time was fixed for the completion of the sale transaction. The applicant company would arrange financial assistance by way of loan from their bankers for the completion of the sale transaction and the amounts would be directly paid by the bank to the owners. Obviously, genuine documents and title deeds were required for the purpose of mobilising loan by the applicant.

(v) The applicant company came to know that the land in T.S. Nos. 1 and 3 were not contiguous and compact block but the land comprised in T.S. No. 2/2 was sandwiched between the two extents of lands comprised in T.S. Nos. 1 and 3. The respondents completely suppressed this vital information and misled the applicants to enter into an oral agreement and subsequently a written

agreement of sale dated 2.2.2006. Patta copies of T.S. Nos. 1 and 3 alone were handed over to the applicants- After much persuasion, a copy of the alleged patta for T.S. No. 2/2 was given by the respondents. It was a forged pat