CHITHRA RAJESH Vs. VIDHYA SHIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara. The suit is filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property and the buildings therein, without participation of the plaintiff, as covenanted in the agreement dated 18.12.2018. As per the averments in the suit, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants on 18.12.2018 for jointly investing in the purchase of land and construction of residential buildings and to share the profit received from sale of the land and the building. The profit is to be shared at the rate of 50% for the plaintiff and 25% each to the defendants. In terms of the agreement, two residential buildings were constructed in the properties purchased in the joint names of the respondents. The plaintiff expended Rs.32,00,000/- towards construction of two residential buildings in the property. The properties along with the buildings are scheduled as item Nos.1 and 2 in the plaint. Contrary to the agreement, the defendants failed to account the expenses incurred for the construction and attempted to alienate item No.1, on completion of the building therein. Hence, the suit.

(2.) In this original petition it is stated that, pending the suit, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and item No.1 building was sold based on the settlement and an amount of Rs.37 lakhs paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get more amounts and was cheated into the settlement by the Counsel, who is to act as mediator as per the terms of the settlement. Apprehending that the respondents may alienate/sell item No.2 without settling her account, petitioner filed an interlocutory application for injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating item No.2. By Exhibit P4, the court below dismissed the injunction application, mainly on the ground that the description of the property mentioned in the agreement and the interlocutory application, differ. The petitioner has challenged Exhibit P4 and has also sought a direction for expeditious disposal of Exhibit P6 interlocutory application filed by her, wherein she has sought permission to purchase item No.2 property and the building therein for a fair and reasonable price.

(3.) Sri.R.Krishnaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments in the suit and original petition and submitted that for the present, the petitioner will be satisfied if Exhibit P6 interlocutory application is directed to be considered expeditiously and the sale of item No.2 property kept in abeyance till such time.