METROHM INDIA LTD. Vs. M. SIVAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is filed for the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed, dtd. 18/12/2008, registered as document No.1563 of 2009, before the Sub-Registrar office, Neelankarai executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff is void and to be set aside with a consequential relief of directing the defendants to repay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,80,55,000.00 together with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on Rs.3,90,00,000.00 from the date of the plaint to till the date of realisation; directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000.00 together with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.2,00,00,000.00 from the date of plaint to till the date of realisation towards damages and for the costs of the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants represented that they are the owners of the property at old S.No.415/3, later S.No.415/3C/2, new survey No.415/3B in Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District described in the schedule. The property was sold to the plaintiff on 18/12/2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,90,00,000.00. Defendants handed over certain revenue records and title deed representing that they pertain to the suit property. The boundaries of 40 cents purchased in the aforesaid S.No. are mentioned in the sale deed. The defendants handed over the property with a factory shed representing that it is the property covered and conveyed under the sale deed. Plaintiff approached various departments in order to develop the property and to comply with the formalities for the purpose of development of the property. The patta which stood in the name of the defendants in patta No.4629 was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff. When certain department officials came to the property with the sketch, they informed the plaintiff that the land and the factory shed, which were handed over to the plaintiff, is not situated in S.No.415/3B, but situated in S.No.415/15. The authorities after verifying the records informed the plaintiff that S.No.415/3B is situated elsewhere and they located it and showed the same, which is 4 blocks away from the property covered by the sale deed. When the plaintiff went to the area to identify S.No.415/3B, there were objections from some persons and the plaintiff was not allowed to fence that area. He was informed that the area was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Plaintiff gathered information under the Right to Information Act from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Executive Engineer cum Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board sent a reply stating that S.No.415/3B and S.No.415/3C are not referred to in the acquisition proceedings, but S.No.415/15 - 40 cents is forming part of the acquisition proceedings. It is further stated that the land acquisition officer has not handed over the possession of the said 40 cents in S.No.415/15 to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Plaintiff was shocked to learn that the property conveyed by the defendants to the plaintiff under the sale deed is in S.No.415/15 and not in S.No.415/3B. In fact, as per the revenue records and physical features, there is no building in S.No.415/3B. Thus, it is clear that the defendants have misrepresented the facts and conveyed the property in S.No.415/15 misrepresenting it as in S.No.415/3B and extracted a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000.00 from the plaintiff. It is clear that the defendants have no title to the land in S.No.415/3B. This is a gross misrepresentation. There is no entry in the land survey register correlating S.No.415/3C with 415/3B. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dtd. 21/3/2012 to the defendants calling upon them to refund the sale consideration of Rs.3,90,00,000.00 together with interest and to pay damages. The defendants sent a reply dtd. 10/4/2012 assuming that they were the owners of old No.415/3C/2, which later became 415/3B, measuring 40 cents, and wanted it to be correlated as S.No.415/3B. The defendants traced their title from one H.Vimala Devi and two others. In the earlier title deeds relied by the defendants, survey number is mentioned as 415/3 and the present S.No.415/3C/2 is interpolated with 'C' written in ink. There is no reference to S.No.415/3B. There is no S.No.415/3C/2 in FMB sketch. Thus, it is clear that the defendants sold the property, for which they have no title. The sale was made by misrepresentation and fraud and is liable to be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the sale price and damages.

(3.) The case of the defendants is that they executed a sale deed with the factory premises of the defendants, situated at S.No.415/3B, Shollinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram. Defendants mortgaged the suit property with the Andhra Bank, Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai. Even at the time of mortgaging the suit property, S.No. was mentioned as 415/3B, admeasuring 40 cents. The said loan was sanctioned after due diligence on the part of the bank. The suit property was originally belonged to one H.Vimala Devi, who bought the same from Govindarajalu Naidu and another on 28/3/1985. Vimala Devi sold the suit schedule property to Aravind on 20/4/1990. The defendants purchased the suit property from Aravind on 30/3/1998. There were necessary mutations in the revenue records. The defendants had also carried on business at the schedule mentioned property for quite a few years. No discrepancy was raised by the banks pertaining to the survey number. Plaintiff approached the defendants for purchase of this property through their representative. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,90,00,000.00 and sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 18/12/2008. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on the same day. The defendants handed over the patta in respect of the property to the plaintiff. From 1985, the suit property was transferred from one hand to another and there had been necessary mutations in the revenue records. The defendants are not aware of the discrepancies in the survey number till the receipt of the notice. During the previous transactions, same survey numbers are mentioned and there is no possibility of quoting wrong survey number. Before purchase, plaintiff made a thorough scrutiny of the title documents relating to the suit property as well as the location and physical conditions of the suit property. The property was purchased through bank loan and it is impossible to believe that a nationalized bank would tender loan of such huge quantum without going into the credentials of the said land. The claim that 40 cents comprised in S.No.415/15 (actually 415/3B) was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is false and untenable. 40 cents conveyed by the defendants was included in the acquisition proceedings, but the acquisition officer has not handed over the possession of the said 40 cents in S.No.415/15 to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Plaintiff failed to provide the details with regard to the acquisition and to whom the Government paid the compensation for acquiring the land in S.No.415/15 (actually S.No.415/3B). The allegation that the defendants misrepresented the plaintiff and extracted a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000.00 is false. There is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the defendants. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to extract lump sum money by furnishing misleading facts. The sale in favour of the plaintiff was registered after following due procedures of law. Plaintiff enjoyed the property for almost four years and now filed the suit with a false and untenable allegations. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.