R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal (O.S.A.) has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No. 2946 of 2018 in C.S. (Diary) No. 15941 of 2018 on the file of this Court, directing return of the plaint by giving liberty to the appellant to re-present the same before the competent Court having jurisdiction over the matter, within a period of two months from the date of return.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the said suit for the following reliefs:

(i) To declare the sale-deed dated 29.12.2016, Registered as Doc. No. 5058 of 2016 executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in terms of Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), dated 27.12.2016 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for treating the sale-deed.

(ii) To declare the sale-deed dated 30.12.2016, Registered as Doc. No. 5075 of 2016 executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit properties, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in terms of Clause 6 of the MoU, dated 27.12.2016 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for treating the sale-deed.

(iii) To direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as liquidated damages to the plaintiff.

(iv) To direct payment of the costs of the proceedings as cause in the suit.

3. For easy reference, the rank of the parties are shown hereto as they are ranked in the suit as plaintiff and defendants.

4. For effective adjudication of this appeal, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to extract the relevant averments in the plaint:

(a) The plaintiff is doing Real Estate business of purchasing lands and laying out and developing them as plots and selling the same, apart from constructing apartments/flats and related activities. The plaintiff is carrying on his business in his proprietary concern of SP Enterprises and also in his own name. In the second week of December 2016, the plaintiff approached one leading finance agent Rajesh Bhatia and handed over his business brochure to arrange finance for his business. The said finance agent arranged a meeting with the second defendant in the Accord Hotel, Bazulla Road, T. Nagar, Chennai in or about the third week of December 2016 and introduced the second defendant and told that the second defendant and his wife, the third defendant, are big jewellery merchants and are also having other business activities in an extensive manner and that they require an immovable property security for their short term credit facilities consummate with the value of the property offered as security.

(b) The first defendant-Company is a Private Limited Company and is represented by defendants 2 and 3 as husband and wife. The second defendant proposed that he will provide 25% of the market value of the property of not less than Rs. 15 Crores in value as interest free loan, if such a property is offered as security in the name of the first defendant and they will execute agreement for providing interest free refundable loan and re- conveyance of the property to be offered as security after one year for the same consideration mentioned in the instrument with all indemnities for the right, title and interest to the property to be offered as security. The second defendant told that he and his wife, the third defendant, are owning the first defendant-Company. They have no real intention to purchase the suit property as absolute sale, except to use it for limited security purposes with the fourth defendant-Bank. The second defendant further represented that the fourth defendant-Bank and its officials are ready to release the funds on the basis of the arrangement.

(c) The plaintiff beli