K. SOUNDARAPANDIAN Vs. S. SRINIVASAN
LAWS(MAD)-2022-12-84
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on December 13,2022

K. Soundarapandian Appellant
VERSUS
S. SRINIVASAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the and by which the Suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd. 8/12/2007 is decreed by the Trial Court. B. The Plaintiff's Case:
(2.)The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the lease hold interest in the suit schedule property having got the same from Arulmigu Thangamuthu Mariamman Temple by a duly registered Document No.503 of 1998 thereby having the lease right in respect of the property for a perpetual 99 years with the right to put up his own super structure for a rent of Rs.20.00 per month. Thereafter, he has put up a super structure with R.C.C. Constructions and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant agreed to sell the said super structure along with the lease hold rights in the land to the plaintiff and for that purpose on 8/12/2007, an agreement for sale was entered into. As per the agreement for sale, the total sale consideration was Rs.13,00,000.00. Out of which a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 was paid as on the date of the agreement as advance. The balance sale consideration was payable within a period of 2 years therefrom. But however, to the dismay of the plaintiff in spite of the sale agreement he came to know that the defendant was attempting to sell his property to third parties and therefore he confronted the defendant in person. Even though the defendant initially prayed for time, he continued with his attempts to alienate the suit property and hence the Suit. C. The Defendant's Case :
(3.)The case of the defendant is that the suit sale agreement is not genuine. The defendant had business transactions by way of partnership business with one V.K.K.Ramamoorthy and his wife Geetha in respect of Cable TV network and other businesses. At the time of expanding the business, when the said Ramamoorthy brought in money as capital, by way of security he had also obtained signatures of the defendant on blank stamp papers, blank papers and also on cheques. Later on, when the defendant and the said Ramamoorthy fell out and conflicts arose between them, the said Ramamoorthy had also misused the cheques and filed cases. He had set up the plaintiff to file the present Suit by handing over the blank stamp paper containing the signature of the defendant in which the suit agreement was created/concocted. The defendant did not receive any amount as advance nor did he enter into such an agreement for sale and prayed for dismissal of the Suit. D. The issues & The Trial:


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.