Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
R. Tharani, J.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
A. Mahaboob Basha and Ors. – Respondents
A.S.(MD) Nos. 12 to 14 of 2018
Decided On : 16-04-2019
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 97 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 53-A - Caltex (India) Act, 1977 - Section 7 - Electricity connection – Pay For damages - Case of plaintiffs is that property belong to one who leased out property as vacant site India a registered lease deed has established petrol pump in suit property - Subsequently lease hold right (India) Ltd has been transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited registered Indian Caltex Act - plaintiffs herein stepped into the shoes of M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd and has been continuing lease hold rights on same terms and conditions as per Section Caltex (India) Act - By exercise of statutory option lease was renewed from same conditions - In meanwhile defendants who are legal heir of deceased filed a suit for recovery of possession in on file of District As per lease deed if lessor apt sell property option to exercise right of purchase is available to plaintiffs defendants step into shoes of lessor and are bound by terms and conditions of lease –Held, Appellants have constructed wall in suit property depriving the right of access - It is stated that the suit property is located in prime locality having access from highways on eastern and western sides and after expiry of the lease period the possession of the appellants is that of trespasser - When suit for delivery of possession is pending without getting prior permission from the owners and without getting approval from appellants Corporation with a mala fide intention to reduce value of property has put up a wall on the western side of suit property thereby relinquishing the right of access attached to suit property on its western side and the plaintiff is bound to deliver suit property with all rights of access appellants it stated that the appellants Corporation is running a petrol pump and since petrol is highly inflammable proper protection needed and the appellant making arrangements to construct a wall on side of Salem Highway and Madras Highway and that appellants Corporation is in possession of property appellants Corporation is entitled to take all the safeguard measures which is permitted lease agreement appellants reveals that appellants Corporation has constructed a wall along the western side of suit property contention of appellants is that the appellants Corporation have constructed a wall as per the lease agreement. As the agreement already expired and as there is no subsisting lease agreement appellants Corporation not entitled to put up any construction without prior permission from original owners - In above circumstances it decided that the respondents are entitled for a prayer of permanent injunction – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. Tharani, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2. The trial Court has taken all the three cases together and passed a common judgment. This appeal is filed against the common Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. Nos. 24 of 2008, 110 and 137 of 2010 dated 19.12.2016 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
3. The suit in O.S. No. 24 of 2008 was filed for a prayer of specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving the sale price of Rs. 14,40,000/-. The trial Court dismissed the suit and against which, this appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2018 has been preferred.
4. The suit in O.S. No. 110 of 2010 was filed for a prayer of recovery of possession and for mesne profits. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit and aggrieved by that judgment and decree, this appeal in A.S. No. 13 of 2018 has been filed before this Court.
5. The suit in O.S. No. 137 of 2010 was filed for a prayer of permanent injunction and the suit is decreed. Against which, this appeal in A.S. No. 14 of 2018 has been preferred before this Court.
6. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 24 of 2008 is that the property belong to one N. Rahamath Bibi who leased out the property as a vacant site to M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., under a registered lease deed dated 30.09.1970 for a period of 20 years. M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., has established a petrol pump in the suit property. Subsequently the lease hold right of M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., has been transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited registered under Indian Caltex Act, 1956. The plaintiffs herein stepped into the shoes of M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., and has been continuing the lease hold rights on the same terms and conditions as per Section 7 of the Caltex (India) Act, 1977.
7. By exercise of the statutory option, the lease was renewed from 01.10.1990 till 31.07.2010 on the same conditions. In the meanwhile, the defendants 1 and 2 who are the legal heir of the deceased Rahamath Bibi filed a suit for recovery of possession in O.S. No. 169 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi. As per Clauses 3(i) and 4(f) of the lease deed dated 30.09.1970, if the lessor apt to sell the property, option to exercise the right of purchase is available to the plaintiffs. The defendants step into the shoes of the lessor and are bound by the terms and conditions of the lease. If they venture into an idea of sale then they are bound to grant an option of purchase to the plaintiffs herein, before an offer to any other persons. The defendants 13 and 14 entered into a sale deed along with the defendants 1 to 12 and the plaintiffs came to know about the same through the suit in O.S. No. 211 of 2005. The execution of sale deed without notice is invalid which has no force of law and the transaction is void and it is not binding upon the plaintiffs. The sale deed in favour of the defendants 13 and 14 does not bind upon the plaintiffs and it is invalid. The plaintiff Corporation is ready to pay the sale consideration which is said to have been paid by the defendants 13 and 14. The defendants are liable to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Corporation. In the sale deed dated 19.03.2005, the value has been fixed for the building, electricity connection, petroleum installations and other products. Actually those installations had been put up by the plaintiff Corporation and it is worth about more than Rs. 15,00,000/-. Those developments cannot be brought as a subject matter of the sale and including the same as subject matter of the sale deeds would amount to fraud. The plaintiffs issued a notice on 28.12.2005 to the defendants 13 and 14. The defendants 13 and 14 sent a reply on 05.01.2006 whereas the defendants 1 to 12 did not sent any reply and the defendants 15 to 19 are added as parties to the proceedings as they are legal heirs of deceased 13th defendant.
8. The averments made in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
