TAAS FOUNDATIONS P LIMITED Vs. LEELIE SEETHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in his affidavit contends briefly as follows: THE deponent is the Director of the applicant Company. THE suit property originally belonged to one Elie alias Anunani wife of Dr. V.K. John and mother of the respondents 1 and 2. By a Will left by her, the first respondent inherited the same. She was in possession and occupation of the same. THE Probate proceedings are pending. THE second respondent is the executor of the will. THEy have entered into an agreement dated 18-9-1993 with the plain tiff for promotion of Flats in the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-. THE applicant has paid Rs. 41,51,000/- to the first respondent. Subsequently, the applicant and the respondents came to know that the extent of ground is less than the extent mentioned in the agreement. Yet, the applicant agreed to pay the entire consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-. THE applicant and the first respondent have applied to the appropriate Authority for "No objection" certificate. A Supplementary agreement dated 29-12-1993, was executed in which it was agreed that the applicant should be delivered vacant possession on or before 30-6-1994. THE applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- to Madras Purasawalkkam Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi in order to discharge a mortgage created by the respondents. THE respondents are colluding together and have prevented the "Nidhi" from releasing the title deeds to the applicant. THE applicants were handed over possession of the vacant land on 16-2-1994. THE respondent has not turned over the building to the applicant. THE applicant if liable to pay the balance of sale consideration only after 18 months from the date of taking possession of the entire property. THE first respondent failed to obtain an order of probate as agreed with the applicant. She had failed to deliver the encumbrance certificate also, to the applicant. THE first respondent has set up the respondents 2 and 3 to defeat the right of the applicant. Even though a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- alone is to be paid by the applicant, as advance, he has paid so far Rs. 41,51,000/- On 3-7-1995, some people attempted to take possession of the property by dispossessing the applicant using force. But, it was prevented by the intervention of the local people. Hence the applicant in O.A. No. 874/1995 has sought for restraining the respondents, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by the applicant and O.A. No. 875/1995 to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.

(2.) THE first respondent filed a common counter contending as follows: THE applicant has filed the suit to enforce the specific performance of the contract. THE 3rd respondent has filed C.S. No. 423/1995 before this Court for partition of the suit schedule property and the same is pending. THE third respondent has also filed a similar application for injunction and it is also pending enquiry. THE Application is therefore not maintainable. THE applicant has not filed any document to show that the respondents proposed to alienate the property. No injunction can be granted on a bald allegation.

(3.) THE suit is for specific performance of an agreement dated 18-9-1993 and 29-12-1993 for directing the first respondent to obtain probate of the Will by which, she had inherited the suit schedule property and for directing the first respondent to hand over vacant possession of the building and register a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour the plaintiff or his nominee. THE plaintiff has filed three applications, one for restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property, the second one for restraining the respondents from alienating the properties and third one is for mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to deliver vacant possession of the building in the suit property. THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant in all these three applications has even at the outset made it clear that he is not arguing O.A. No. 873/1995 in which the relief sought for is mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to deliver vacant possession of the building to the applicant. THErefore, that application is not considered.