JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and decree of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee dated 25.07.2013 passed in O.S. No. 141 of 2009.

1. Plaint averment in short:

The plaintiff as owner of the land measuring an extend of 10,450 sq. ft. at No. 72, Thiruvengada Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai, and the first defendant a construction firm represented by the second and third defendants as its Managing Partners, entered into an memorandum of understanding (MoU) on 20.02.1994 to promote part of the land measuring 5625 sq. ft.

2. As per the terms of the MoU, the plaintiff handed over possession of 5625 sq. ft. of his land to the defendants and handed over the title documents in original. The asbestos sheet shed and the 5 feet compound wall was demolished to put up the apartment consisting of 7 flats. As consideration, the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- and hand over 2 flats constructed in 1,650 sq. ft. at the estimated costs of Rs. 8.25 lakhs. A general power of attorney dated 08.06.1994 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. Further, the defendants orally agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as security deposit and Rs. 1,00,000/- to T.I.I.C. towards discharge of the loan availed by the plaintiff which was to be adjusted towards the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- referred in the Memorandum of Understanding.

3. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- given by the defendants in favour of TIIC returned for want of funds. Later, as against the agreed sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- the defendants paid only Rs. 75,000/- to TIIC on behalf of the plaintiff and the balance Rs. 75,000/- not paid. The defendants had no wherewithal to complete the project within 24 months as agreed and they extended the work for three years causing hardship to the plaintiff. The defendants pledged the entire extend of land measuring 10,450 sq. ft. by misusing the original document handed over to them and the power of attorney given to them. Learning about this, criminal prosecution was initiated against the defendants and the power of attorney deed was cancelled on 26.03.1996. Despite due notice of the cancellation of power of attorney, the defendant continue to construct and sell the flats without any authority. Contrary to the agreement, the defendant instead of ground plus 2 floors had constructed an additional floor without plaintiff’s consent and permission. Also had put up an additional flat measuring 725 sq. ft. in the ground floor in violation of the planning development rules.

4. After an inordinate delay of 3 years, the defendant completed the construction and without any valid authorisation had sold 10 flats out of 13 flats. Claiming that the act of the defendants had caused huge monetary loss, the suit is filed for the following reliefs:

(a) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over 2 flats measuring the 1,650 sq. ft. on the ground and first floor along with another 825 sq. ft. built up area in the additional floor/space constructed without the plaintiff s permission or authority.

(b) Consequently directing the defendants to hand over the original sale deed dated 14.07.1978 registered as document No. 1409/78 pertaining to the plaintiff s property at Door No. A1, Thiruvengada Nagar, Ambathur, Chennai-53.

(c) Directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,500/- with interest at 24% on Rs. 75.000/- from date of plaintiff till date of realization.

(d) Directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs. 1,56,000/- to the plaintiff, with interest at the 24% from date of plaint till date of realization.

(e) Directing the defendant to pay Rs. 1,45,000/- to the plaintiff in lieu the 290 sq. ft. the plaintiff is entitled in the additional flat measuring 825 sq. ft. constructed by the defendants.

5. The defendants contention in the written statement:

The defendants admit the averment that they entered into the memorand