LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-225

DHANRAJ N. KOCHAR Vs. N.R. VATCHALA

Decided On August 16, 2022
DHANRAJ N. KOCHAR Appellant
V/S
N.R. Vatchala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.O.P.No.15716 of 2017 and 8609 of 2019:-

(2.) These three private complaints were filed on common facts that the complainant N.R.Vatchala was carrying on real estate business in the name and style of M/s.Saravana Real Estate. She entered into an unregistered sale agreement with one Ravichandran, for purchase of 3 acres of land situated in S.No.43 Part, Kolathur Village, Perambur Taluk, Chennai for consideration of Rs.15.00 lakhs. To develop her business, she borrowed Rs.2,25,000.00 from Dhanraj Kochar, Inderchand Jain and Suresh Kumar in year 1988. As a security for the loan, she instructed her vendor Ravichandran to execute the sale deeds in favour of these three persons to an extent of 0.48 acre each. These three accused persons and the complainant had an oral agreement that, among them, on repayment of loan money with interest these three persons will execute the sale deeds in favour of the persons to whom the defacto complainant nominates. The said arrangement was made between them to avoid acquisition of property under Tamil Nadu Urban and Land Ceiling Act. It is alleged that, the entire 3 acres of lands was developed into residential plots and approval was obtained after gifting the area earmarked for public purposes to the local bodies. Three sale deeds were executed by these three accused persons as per oral arrangement and the instruction of the defacto complainant. The remaining three plots in the 1.44 acres of land, the accused persons without the knowledge and instruction of the defacto complainant in the year 1995 illegally sold to Mrs.Dur E.Shawar.

(3.) In this regard, the suit was filed by N.R.Vatchala through her power of attorney Thirunavukarasu, before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2945 of 1999, interim injunction was granted. In spite of interim order, the accused persons sold the property to third parties. Pending suit, there was a compromise arrived between the parties and the accused agreed to sell the remaining plots and share 50% of the sale proceeds with the defacto complainant. However, in breach of the said compromise and against the spirit of compromise memo, they are refusing to sell the properties to the buyers identified by her as per the terms of compromise.