P. SHANTHI Vs. D. DHINAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit had been filed seeking a Judgment and Decree to declare a sale deed dated 20.01.2015 executed by the first defendant as power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs in favour of the second defendant in Document No. 198 of 2015 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, as null and void and unenforceable and not valid in law and not binding on the plaintiffs and order it to be cancelled and also for a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property to any third party except to the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property and for costs. The Plaint:

(2.) It had been stated that the suit property at Old Door No.14, New Door No.16, New Manicka Naicker Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai, measuring an extent of 3380 sq.ft., was the absolute property of E.Panchala Naidu. The first plaintiff P.Shanthi @ Shanthi Bai and the fourth plaintiff P.Loganathn are the daughter and son of E.Panchala Naidu. The second and third plaintiffs S.Yogalakshmi and S.Karpagam, are the daughters of the first plaintiff and the fifth and sixth plaintiffs L.Dinesh and L.Yuvaraj are the sons of the fourth plaintiff. It was stated that E.Panchala Naidu executed a Will on 22.01.1970 bequeathing all his properties to his two wives, Seetha @ Seethammal and Meenakshi @ Meenakshiammal and also to his daughter, the first plaintiff Shanthi @ Shanthi Bai and to his son the fourth plaintiff, P.Loganathan and to his sister, Adhilakshmi with rights of enjoyment during the life time and thereafter to be devolved absolutely to his grandchildren, the second, third, fifth and sixth plaintiffs herein. He died on 23.01.1970. The Will was probated by a Judgment of this Court in T.O.S.No. 11 of 1970 dated 07.12.1977. The first wife Seetha @ Seethammal died on 08.01.1974. The second wife Meenakshi @ Meenakshi Ammal dided on 05.09.2006. It was stated that the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The property was also under occupation of six tenants. The first plaintiff claimed that she was a housewife and her husband was working as Electrician; the fourth plaintiff was working as a car driver and was residing outside the suit property. The building in the property was very old and required demolition and reconstruction. The first defendant, D.Dhinakaran, Proprietor of M/s. Green Avenue Homes and Gardens, having Office at Alwarpet, Chennai, offered to demolish the existing building and to develop the property into an apartment complex consisting of eight residential units with all amenities. The plaintiffs and the first defendant entered into a Development Agreement on 14.12.2011. The first defendant agreed to construct two flats on the ground floor, four flats on the first floor and two flats on the second floor. Out of the eight flats, four flats were to be allotted to the plaintiffs and four flats were to be allotted to the first defendant.

(3.) It was covenanted in the Development Agreement that the first defendant would also pay a sum of Rs.65/- lakhs to the plaintiffs as free money. On the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.15/- lakhs had been paid by way of two cheques favouring the first and fourth plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- each. It was further covenanted that permission from the Court should be obtained for the sale of the undivided share in the land of the minors, the fifth and sixth plaintiffs. In pursuance of the terms of the agreement, the fourth plaintiff P.Loganathan filed O.P.No. 263 of 2012 before the High Court seeking permission to deal with the undivided share of the property of the minors / his sons / fifth and sixth plaintiffs. This was ordered on 23.04.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant on 11.05.2012 registered as Document No. 262 of 2012 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam. It was claimed that power was granted only for the specific purpose of developing the schedule mentioned property by constructing eight flats and to sell the undivided share of the built up area and building. It was stated that the execution of the Development Agreement and the General Power of attorney are part of a single transaction for development of the suit property and co-terminus with each other. Thereafter, the six tenants, who were in occupation of the building also vacated after receiving adequate compensation.