IMPORTANT POINT
The subsequent construction contracts superseded the original memorandum of understanding, and the defendants' possession was illegal as they failed to complete the construction as per the contract.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal (CAD) filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.509 of 2011 dated 26.11.2019.)

1. The defendants 1 and 4 in CS No.509 of 2011 are on Appeal challenging the decree for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, damages towards illegal occupation and mandatory injunctions directing the return of the original documents granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The parties will be referred to as per the ranks in the suit.

2. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs claiming the reliefs aforesaid on the following backdrop:

2.1. The plaintiffs, who are members of one family, had purchased an extent of 5 grounds and 454 sq. feet of land (suit property) under 12 different Sale Deeds that were executed between March 1996 and March 1997 from Mrs.K.C. Nalini Bai and others. The fourth defendant, who was the partner of the first defendant, a construction firm, acted as the power of attorney of the vendors under the 12 Sale Deeds. Simultaneously the plaintiffs entered into 16 construction grievances with the first defendant firm represented by its partner, the fourth defendant, appointing the first defendant as contractors for construction of a commercial complex in the suit property. A sum of Rs.3,58,00,911/- was agreed to be paid towards the cost of construction. Necessary powers of attorney empowering defendants 1 and 4 to prepare, submit and obtain plans for the purposes of construction were also executed.

2.2. According to the plaintiffs, the fourth defendant represented that the Parent Title Deeds were required for inspection by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Greater Chennai Corporation for the purposes of sanctioning of plans for construction and took those documents, viz. the Sale Deed dated 21.05.1958 and the family arrangement dated 31.12.1968. A plan for construction of a commercial complex measuring about 22700 sq. feet was granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 07.03.1997. The defendant was permitted to enter upon the suit property for the purposes of construction.

2.3. As per the agreements, the first defendant was to complete the construction within 20 months. Though the plaintiffs were making payments of monies as required by the agreement, the second defendant required more monies and demanded payments ahead of the periods scheduled in the agreement. Between March 1996 and February 1999, the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.1,04,53,465/- to the first defendant towards the cost of construction.

2.4. To their dismay, the plaintiffs found that the construction has not progressed up to the desired levels and the planning permission also expired. The defendants permanently abandoned the project in July 2004. They have removed their men and material from the plaint schedule property. Finding no other alternative, the plaintiffs took over the property and appointed their own security personal to enable completion of the construction through other contractors. They had also to seek renewal of the sanctions and licenses obtained for construction.

2.5. The fourth defendant, in February- March 2006, attempted to forcibly evict the security men appointed by the plaintiffs and this attempt was, however, scuttled by Mr.Pradeeshkumar, a relative of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs left without any other alternative filed the suit in CS No.196 of 2006 seeking a permanent injunction in order to protect their possession. Interim orders of injunction were also granted by this Court. However, the fourth defendant using rowdy elements forced out the plaintiffs’ security men and installed his maid servant and her family and the seventh defendant, who is said to be the Yoga Teacher of the fourth defendant.

2.6. The seventh and eighth defendants viz. the Yoga Teacher and the maid servant have