P SYAMALA PROPRIETRIX PRAJWAL ASSOCIATE Vs. R GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.5.2001 by executing sale deed with respect to the suit property and for declaring that the plaintiffs have an equitable charge over the schedule mentioned property on the payment made by him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men from alienating the property or demolishing the property or structures either by way of sale, mortgage, joint development, lease or otherwise.

(2.) IN the plaint it is stated that a total sum of Rs. 70 lakhs was paid by four cheques on 9.5.2001; the first defendant gave the Xerox copies of the documents stating that the originals were with the Egmore Benefit Society, the mortgage. Since the defendants did not pay any amount to the Egmore Benefit Society towards the mortgage, they wanted to enter into a written agreement for the joint development agreement and it was agreed between the parties for the payment to be made periodically from 10th August 2001 to 30th December, 2001. The first defendant informed the plaintiffs that he would get the documents from the Egmore Benefit Society. Since the first defendant did not take any steps to discharge the mortgage and get the documents, the plaintiffs wanted to recall the money. The first defendant promised that he would refund the money with interest and other damages. But in the meanwhile, he entered into another agreement with the 7th defendant. Therefore, this suit has been filed.

(3.) THE plaintiffs now have filed the present application O.A. 2295 of 2003 for an order of attachment before judgment of the suit property. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondents-1 to 6 did not deposit Rs.70 lakhs received by them. THEy deliberately failed to comply with the order of the Division Bench which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Hence, the present application has been filed for attachment before judgment of the immovable property of the defendants-1 to 6/respondents-l to 6. THE defendants confessed in the course of proceedings that they are not owning any other immovable property other than the suit property; unless an order of attachment before judgment is granted pending disposal of the suit, the applicants" interest would not be adequately safeguarded.