S PONNUTHAI Vs. P MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal, having suffered concurrent judgments against her in the courts below.

(2.) The relationship between the parties is determined by three agreements, all dated 7.5.1989. One is an agreement of sale in which the appellant is described as the vendor and one Standard Housing Construction and Finance Company, represented by Manonmani, the wife of the respondent herein and the General Power of Attorney Chief Executive, Muthusamy, the respondent are referred to as purchasers. The next agreement is a Joint Venture Agreement in which the appellant is shown as the party of the first part and the first vendor in the above agreement, viz., the Construction and Finance Company is shown as the party of the second part. Though the party of the second part is described as a company, it is obvious from the recitals in the deed that it is a proprietory concern, the proprietrix being the wife of the respondent. The third document is a General Power of Attorney under which the appellant, the principal, has appointed the respondent Chief Executive of the Standard Housing Construction and Finance Company as her lawful attorney.

(3.) The appellant was allotted a plot, which is mentioned in the plaint schedule, of an extent of 1 Ground and 1550 sq. ft. by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Clause 7 of the allotment order required the appellant to construct a building in the said plot within a period of three years from the date of handing over of the plot.