MOLLY ABRAHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are three in number, the first petitioner being the mother and the second and third petitioners her sons and they have come forward to file the above Criminal Original Petition praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of investigation or interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' property bearing No.9A, III Street, Dr.Subbaroya Nagar, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024 having a total extent of 24 grounds 1390 sq.ft. except by due process of an order from a competent Civil court.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner's husband one Mr.A.G.Abraham has purchased the said property from one Selva Saroja on payment of the entire agreed sale consideration with her for herself and as Managing Director of M/s.T.P.Sokkalal Ram Sait Factory P. Ltd. and required to execute a sale deed conveying the said property to him, but, in a piquant situation met with by the said A.G. Abraham, he was not able to get the registration done in his name; that the entire extent of 24 grounds 1390 sq.ft. is enclosed with the compound wall put up by the said A.G. Abraham right from the year 1985 further constructing their residential house in a portion of the said property and making use of the remaining property for their business run under the name and style of York Demolitions and the first petitioner's husband A.G.Abraham was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death.

(3.) Giving the entire description of the said property, the petitioners would further submit that on the death of the said Smt. Selva Saroja on 30.11.1994 and on the death of Mr.A.G. Abraham on 01.12.1997, the legal heirs of the deceased Selva Saroja had taken over the management of T.P.Sokkalal Ram Sait Factory P. Ltd. and taking advantage of the non-execution of the sale deed in spite of the entire sale consideration having been received by the deceased Selva Saroja still they negotiate with the petitioners for additional payment or to surrender a portion of the property even though they are quite aware of the interest of the petitioners in the suit property.