AMITAV MUKHERJI Vs. LAKSHANA HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belong to the first defendant. The first defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of the suit property and the plaintiff also had mutually agreed for the same. It is stated that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Only). Pursuant to the same, on 29.09.2000, the plaintiff is said to have paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as advance, towards sale of the property and the sale would be completed within one month. The plaintiff further stated that the said sale agreement was later reduced to writing on 05.02.2001 and the first defendant had taken the said agreement in duplicate for the purpose of forwarding the same to the appropriate authority for clearance, as the sale consideration exceeded Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only). The plaintiff also has stated that a sum of Rs.24,85,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) was paid to the first defendant by various demand drafts, pay orders and cheques etc. Having parted with more than 2/3rd of the amount, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property, which is a flat in the second floor at Door No.73, Sir Thyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff was also put in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Though the plaintiff claimed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the first defendant kept postponing the registration on the pretext that the clearance from the appropriate authority was awaited.

(3.) While so, the first defendant had sent a notice to one V.Jayalakshmi, who was the promoter of the Flat on 15.10.2001 alleging that the said V.Jayalakshmi had not put the first defendant in possession of the property. As the power agent of the plaintiff is the son of the said V.Jayalakshmi, the plaintiff was informed about the false allegations and the sudden change in the attitude of the first defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 02.11.2001 calling upon the first defendant to perform his part of contract. The first defendant also sent a reply notice on 19.11.2001 alleged to have made false allegations including denying the payments made by the plaintiff. The said reply was also suitably responded by the plaintiff by sending a rejoinder on 16.01.2002. The plaintiff had further alleged that the first defendant was negotiating with third parties for sale of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.02.2001 or in the alternative, directing the first defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.24,85,000/- as refund of advance, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.