Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J.
T. Srihari Kumar Bhagavat – Plaintiff
Versus
P. Sheik Mohideen and ors. – Defendants
C.S.No.931 of 2007
Decided On : 26-05-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Money for developing the plots and they approached the plaintiff with a request to purchase the lands - Registered agreements - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of as claimed in the plaint - Whether 2nd defendant is a necessary party to the suit - Whether the MOU referred to in the plaint and stated to have been executed between the plaintiff and defendants is valid and binding on the 2nd defendant in view of his contention that he was not a party to the said document - Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a - Suit scheduled properties which belonged to various persons was being developed by defendants are doing real estate business through their partnership firm SL Agencies - defendants ran out of money for developing the plots and they approached plaintiff with a request to purchase lands - Sale consideration was totally fixed at Rs.50 Lakhs and two registered agreements of sale both was entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant in Doc No. file of District Registrar - Respectively was paid - 2nd defendant had signed as a witness - Plaintiff had paid the balance sum various dates and acknowledged by 1st defendant. The plaintiff had therefore become owner of the land - 1st defendant had agreed to register property as and when required by the plaintiff – Held, plaintiff would clearly admit loan of Rs.50 Lakhs given to 1st defendant and state that Rs.25 Lakhs out of this has been paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff would further state that a balance of a sum was due with interest is date of agreement of sale and which date can be safely taken as the date of receipt of the money by the 1st defendant - Reply is to the notice of 1st defendant, Ex.P.6 asking the plaintiff to cancel the agreement of sale as all the amounts under the loan was fully paid - Fact that plaintiff has been varying his claim at each juncture it can only be concluded that the entire loan amount has been cleared and from the year 2005 plaintiff had also stopped executing the sale deeds in favour of 3rd parties as a confirming party - plaintiff has impleaded the 2nd defendant on the ground that 1st and 2nd defendants are carrying on a partnership business and the 2nd defendant signed the document (Ex.P.3 agreement) as a witness - Agreement of sale Ex.P.3 has been executed only between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and further the plaintiff has not refuted the contentions raised by defendants in their respective written statement that the 2nd defendant is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. In view of the above issue no.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the 2nd defendant - suit is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff has instituted the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1 Crore together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing till date of payment. Infact the specific case of the plaintiff is that although he is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.6,54,00,000/- he is restricting his claim to a sum of Rs.1 Crore as he cannot afford the Court fee for the said amount.
2. Plaintiff's case:
A. The suit scheduled properties which belonged to various persons was being developed by the defendants who are doing real estate business through their partnership firm SL Agencies. The defendants had obtained Power of Attorney from the original owners for forming a layout of house plots and selling the same to third parties.
B. In the process, the defendants ran out of money for developing the plots and they approached the plaintiff with a request to purchase the lands. The sale consideration was totally fixed at Rs.50 Lakhs and two registered agreements of sale both dated 27.03.2003 was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in Doc No.1547/2003 and 1874/2003 on the file of the District Registrar, Madras South. An advance of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively was paid. The 2nd defendant had signed as a witness. The plaintiff had paid the balance sum of Rs.48,50,000/- on various dates and acknowledged by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff had therefore become the owner of the land. The 1st defendant had agreed to register the property as and when required by the plaintiff.
C. Thereafter, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they would sell the plots on behalf of the plaintiff on commission basis. On 06.05.2003, a MOU was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants to sell the plots.
D. After the agreement of sale a large number of plots mentioned in the A and B schedule to the plaint was sold to 3rd parties after the roads were formed @ Rs.3,60,000/- per ground. This amount increased from time to time. The plaintiff would submit that he was present for every sale and signed as a confirming party.
E. It is the plaintiff's case that on different dates the defendants had paid a sum of Rs.29,50,000/- and after 3rd May 2004 no payments were made. On 08.02.2004, the defendants had promised to pay a sum of Rs.47,50,000/- on or before 15.04.2004. Instead of paying the plaintiff as undertaken, the defendants had diverted the funds for the purchase of new lands and buildings. On 05.03.2004 the 1st defendant had purchased a shopping complex on Mount Poonamallee Road and the 2nd defendant a residential building at Moosa Street, T.Nagar on 16.04.2004. They had also entered into an agreement to purchase lands at Kundrathur.
F. The plaintiff would submit that while he was demanding the payment of money collected by the sale, the 1st defendant had issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2005 stating that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs as hand loan on the security of the agreements of sale and as the entire loan had been repaid by the 1st defendant and therefore would call upon the plaintiff to cancel the sale agreement. The plaintiff sent a reply dated 19.09.2005 contending that a balance of Rs.25 Lakhs was still payable by the defendants and calling upon to pay the same. A reminder notice dated 21.02.2006 was issued reiterating the same. However, there was no response.
G. The silence on the side of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 12.10.2006 calling for accounts and asking the defendants not to deal with the unsold plots. The defendants had issued an undated reply refuting the claim and putting forth false allegations.
H. The plaintiff would submit that vide the MOU dated 06.05.2003, the defendants were bound to pay the plaintiff his share in each of the sale deeds and as on the date of the filing of the suit over 190 plots had been sold at Rs.3,60,000/- per ground and a sum of Rs.6,84,00,000/- had been collected as sale consideration. Therefore, by notice dated 10.04.2007 the
SupremeToday
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
