A party who admits a fact in their written statement is not required to prove that fact, and the court may make an order or give judgment based on that admission.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

O.S.A.No.264 of 2018

and

C.M.P. No.19809 of 2021

1.Envee Enterprises,

by its Partner

Mrs.Sasikala Vamanan

2.Sasikala Vamanan

3.Mani Prakash

...Appellants/Defendants

.Vs.

Shankar Karikar

...Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the

Amended Letters Patent of 1865 r/w. Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree

dated 15.12.2016 in C.S. No.601 of 2009.

For Appellants

:

Mr.Srinath Sridevan

For Respondent

:

Mr.M.V.Swaroop

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]

This appeal has been directed against the impugned decree

and judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed in C.S. No.601 of 2009, in

and by which, the learned Single Judge decreed the suit as

prayed for with costs.

2.The appellants are defendants before this Court in C.S.

No.601 of 2009. The first defendant is a partnership firm and

defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. It is the case of the

plaintiff/respondent that the first defendant had entered into

an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 09.08.2006 agreeing

to sell an extent of 2,800 sq.ft. of land in Old Door No.19/1,

New Door No.23, Cenotaph Road, Chennai 600 018 in R.S.No.3856/B,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Block No.76, Mylapore Village for a total consideration of

Rs.1,25,00,000/- and the sale shall be completed within one

month from the date of release of the Sale Deed dated

21.10.2003. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent

that he had paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- towards part of the

sale consideration as per the agreement dated 09.08.2006. Though

the plaintiff/respondent was ready and willing to perform his

part of the contract, the defendants have been evading the

execution of the sale deed on one premise or the other. While

so, during December 2006, the plaintiff/respondent learnt to

know that the defendants were not in possession of the property

and that there was a dispute with regard to the possession

between the defendants and the National Bank for Agriculture and

Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NABARD’),

which also resulted in a police complaint lodged by NABARD on

30.12.2006 against one J.Subramaniam and others alleging that

they had trespassed into the property on behalf of the first

defendant. However, the plaintiff also came to know that NABARD

had filed W.P. No.549 of 2007 against the first defendant and

others seeking a declaration that the land, which has been

agreed to be sold by the defendants, has been earmarked as open

space under the planning permit granted to them and no

construction shall be raised therein and this Court, by order

dated 08.01.2007 had granted an order of interim injunction

restraining the respondents from in any manner modifying the use

of the land in violation of the planning permission dated

21.02.1986. While so, when the plaintiff/respondent approached

defendants 2 and 3 with a view to get clarifications regarding

the property, there was no response from defendants 2 and 3.

Therefore, the suit in C.S. No.601 of 2009 was filed by the

plaintiff/respondent before this Court to pass a judgment and

decree against the appellants/defendants directing them jointly

and severally to pay a sum of Rs.52,34,750/- with subsequent

interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.35 lakhs

and to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

3.Written statement has been filed by the defendants stating

that they have received a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as advance

amount for the sale of the suit property on various dates under

the terms of an agreement for sale dated 09.08.2006. It is

averred by the defendants