JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petitions filed under section 34 [2] [[a] [ii], 24 [2] [a] [iv], 34 [2] [b] [i] [ii] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,. 1996 to set aside the arbitration Award in A.F.No.155 of 2018 dated 24.04.2021 passed by the learned sole arbitrator for the reasons mentioned above and allow the claim of the claimant and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay the cost to the claimant.)

1. Aggrieved over the award passed by the sole arbitrator, present petition has been filed challenging the same.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition is as follows:

2.1 The subject matter of the property was originally owned by one Suseela Ramasamy. However, her husband Ramasamy claiming to be the owner of the property executed a Deed of Trust dated 27.05.1987 making himself as the founder and appointed himself, Suseela Ramasamy and D.V. Muralidharan as Trustees. The said Ramasamy died on 24.01.1994 leaving behind his wife Suseela Ramasamy and also an unregistered Will dated 24.04.1994 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the Trust created by him with a direction to the Trustees to sell the house for the best possible price and the trustees shall hold the fund representing the sale proceeds as the corpus fund of the Trust and entire proceeds of sale shall be invested in any other capital assets as provided in the Income Tax Act which qualify for exemption of tax on capital gains. Besides, he had also appointed his wife Suseela Ramasamy as an Executrix of the said Will. Suseela Ramasamy also died on 03.09.2011 leaving behind her unregistered Will dated 24.05.2010. Both the Wills were probated before the High Court in O.P.No.487 of 2014 and O.P.No.196 of 2013. Prior to the Will being probated, the claimant has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.07.2013 for purchase of the suit property on various conditions and paid an advance of Rs.one lakh on the date of the Memorandum of Agreement.

2.2 The Memorandum of Agreement also stipulates that the title should be established within six months from the date of execution of Memorandum of Agreement by getting Will probated and patta in respect of the property to be obtained within 7 days of the completion of the probate proceedings. The claimant has to obtain necessary sanctions, permits, quotas and licenses for development of the property. After satisfying all the pre-requisites according to the agreement, the claimant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.one crore. However, the respondent had not obtained patta in respect of the property and it is also found that the property was not in the name of Ramasamy and it is in the name of Suseela Ramasamy. It is also claimed by the claimant that there is a dispute in the measurement, which has to be set right. The claimant has in fact spent considerable amount for these aspects. However, the respondents did not comply the conditions and established the title. It is also agreed that the remaining consideration of Rs.39,53,00,000/- shall be paid by the claimant within a period of 6 months from the date of obtaining copies of the ownership prerequisites from the respondents. However, the respondents have not completed their obligations and they have issued a letter dated 23.07.2016 rescinding the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.07.2013. Hence, reference has been made for seeking relief to set aside the communication dated 23.07.2016 issued by the respondents rescinding the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.07.2013 as premature and invalid in the circumstances of the case and for granting fresh time to complete the transaction as per the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12.07.2013 and for further reliefs.

3. The respondents, admitted the Memorandum of Agreement, however denied the other allegations of the claimants, it is their contention that they had agreed to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.40,52,00,000/- at the instance of the claimant and the claimant had parted a token advance of Rs.one lakh. The respondents had also