A.K. HIDAYATHULLA Vs. MOHAMMED ZIAUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) THE plaintiff stated that the suit scheduled mentioned property bearing survey No.250/2C, 250/4A, an extent of 1 acre 20 cents originally belonged to one Pitchai Vellar. After his demise, his legal-heirs had alienated the property to the plaintiff, first defendant and one Mohammed Rafi on 18.10.1995, through a registered sale deed. Out of the said land, an extent of 69 cents were divided equally amongst the three of them. Thereafter, the rest of the schedule mentioned property i.e., an extent of 51 cents had been given to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for lease for a period of 30 years under a registered lease deed dated 26.08.1999. The said sale deed has been registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Manamadurai. Before registering the lease deed, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation had been assigned the suit property on 01.04.1998. They had also started their business. The second defendant viz., Shakul Hameed and his brother Mohammed Yusuf are partners and running a petrol bunk at Parthibanoor, after getting a dealership from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Pathibanoor. The said petrol bunk business has been transferred to the suit property on the basis of lease agreement. At that point of time, the co-partner, Mohammed Yusuf had been discharged from the partnership. Therefore, the plaintiff had joined as a partner in the said firm and made a joint business agreement with the second defendant viz., Shahul Hameed and started the business in the said suit property. Thereafter, on 11.06.2002, the plaintiff and the second defendant as one part and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation as another part have made a memorandum of agreement. As per memorandum of agreement, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation had granted licence to both of them to sell the petroleum products for a period of 15 years. Thereafter, the co-partner viz., the second defendant, Shahul Hameed had discharged himself from the partnership firm in the year 2006, but the plaintiff has been continuously running the said business. The Bharat Petroleum had not given its consent to discharge the said Shahul Hameed from the said partnership firm. Therefore, the plaintiff and the second defendant viz., Shahul Hameed had made a written agreement in order to discharge the said Shahul Hameed / second defendant. The second defendant had given a letter to the State Bank of India, Parthibanoor Branch stating that he had been discharged from the partnership firm. As such, he has no rights or connection with the partnership firm viz., M/s.N.S.Mohammed Sultan Automobiles Firm. As such, the second defendant has no rights over the said petrol bunk business.

(3.) THE plaintiff further stated that as per contentions of the sale deed, 1/3rd of the suit property had been transferred in the name of the first defendant and the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 for the total sale consideration of Rs.5,15,514.00 through cheque bearing No.114289 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Spenzer Plaza Branch. Actually, there was no sale consideration received by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to set- aside the sale deed as null and void.