DHARAMCHAND Vs. ALACRITY HOUSING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the learned Single Judge passed on 06.09.2011, in Application No.1009 of 2011, in E.P.No.3459 of 2010, in C.S.No.398 of 2007, defendants 2 to 4 [Judgment Debtors 2 to 4] have directed this intra-court Appeal.

(2.) THE members of Plaintiff, 'Aravalli Flat Owners Association', wanted to purchase flats, to be constructed by 'M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited', the first defendant, on the suit property, measuring about 19029 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.1550/6, situate in Murrays Gate Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 18. On 18.12.2000, the second defendant, as Power Agent of owners of the suit property, entered into a sale agreement with the builder/first defendant for the sale of the suit land. First defendant issued allotment letters to the members of Plaintiff Association. They have paid nearly 4.76 crores to the first defendant. First and second defendants have raised loans on the suit property from Union Bank of India, Mylapore. The second defendant guaranteed the loan and the title deed of the suit property has been deposited with the Bank.

(3.) MRS .Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.R.Meenal, learned counsel for the appellants (Defendants 2 to 4) assailing the impugned order contended that in order to give a quietus to this matter, based on the information furnished by the first defendant, the second defendant (first appellant) agreed for a solution and filed a Memo. And based on that the Judgment of the Division Bench came to be passed on 13.02.2008. Subsequently, it came to light that the first defendant was already burdened with many financial commitments and the first defendant heavily indebted and has weak financial position. But, the first defendant did not reveal this to the second defendant. Had the first defendant disclosed its true position, appellants would not have agreed for an arrangement, based upon which, on 13.02.2008, the Judgment of the Division Bench came to be passed. In effect, the first defendant has misled, duped and defrauded the second defendant. This aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge.