2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 84121
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/S.LVR AND DONG IN STONE LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S.UNIVERSAL GRANITES INDUSTRIES P LTD – Respondent
SA 441/2020
['R THIAGARAJAN', '', 'VASUDHA THIGARAJAN', 'M/S R MUNUSWAMY', '', 'E PRABU', 'V SURIYA SANKAR COUNSEL', 'MEMO OF APPEARANCE FILED BY ADDL GOVT PLEADERCS', 'M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', 'V SRIMATHI', 'V LAKSHMINARAYANAN-MS/', 'm/s m karthikeyan', 's girisssh', 'R- STATE BANK OF INDIA SIRUTHOZHIL CHENNAI BRANCH REP BY ITS MANAGER NO LD NO']
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on
08.12.2021
Judgment Pronounced on
16.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A.No.441 of 2020
and
CMP.Nos.9367 and 9368 of 2020
M/s.LVR and DONG-IN STONE LIMITED
represented by its Managing Director
L.R.Sivaprasad
...Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
..vs..
1.
M/s.Universal Granites Industries (P) Ltd
rep.by its Managing Director
S.Janardhana Reddy
No.48, Vanguard House
II Line Beach Road
Chennai-600 001.
2.
S.S.Anthoni
3.
State Bank of India
Siruthozhil (Chennai) branch
rep. by its Manager
No.2(Old No.320)
Valluvar Kottam High Road
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
4.
The Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
5.
State Industrial Promotion
Corporation of Tamilnadu (SIPCOT)
rep.by its Mananging Director
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
6.
The District Revenue Officer
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
...Respondents/Defendants/Defendants
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019
made in A.S.No.14 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.11.2015 made in O.S.No.181 of 2010 on the file
of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant
:Mr.R.Thiagarajan
For Respondent-1
:Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent-2
:Mr.R.Munuswamy
For Respondent-3
:No appearance
For Respondents 4 & 6
:Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate
For Respondent-5
:Mr.M.Karthikeyan
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree in A.S.No.14 of 2016 dated 26.11.2019 on the file of
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, confirming
the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.181 of 2010 dated 20.11.2015.
2.
Appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for the
reliefs of directing the defendants 1 and 2 to specifically
perform the agreement for sale dated 11.01.1985 in respect of
the suit property by executing a sale deed, permanent injunction
restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the
appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property described in plaint schedule-1, restraining the
defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with smooth running of its
factory, group companies in suit schedule-1 property,
restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the custody
of the original title deeds in respect of the suit properties,
restraining defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering or
dealing with the suit properties, for permanent injunction
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
restraining the defendants 4 to 6, their men, agents, servants,
subordinates or anyone claiming through them or authorized by
them from interfering with the plaintiff's right to have free
ingress and egress to reach its property comprised in S.No.55/1,
55/2 and 53/1 passing through the property comprised in S.No.48,
Ekattur Village, Kancheepuram Village, and for other reliefs.
3.
Appellant/plaintiff company is incorporated under
the Indian Companies Act, 1956 as a private limited company and
became a deemed public limited company. It is engaged in the
manufacture of granite monuments,
also manufacturer of
handicrafts ornamental granite monuments and exports finished
products to foreign countries. Its group companies M/s.G.Tech
Stone Ltd., and M/s.Perfect Stone Ltd., are deemed Public
Limited Companies and owning properties at Egathur, adjacent to
the suit properties. Directors of first respondent/first
defendant company were introduced to the appellant/plaintiff by
its foreign colloborators. Appellant purchased the property
measuring 3.86 acr