VIJAYASHANTHI Vs. INDERCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Crl.O.P and Crl.R.C are arising between the same parties and the issues involved in both the cases are one and the same and therefore the issues are dealt with jointly and thereby the order is passed as common order.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that there was a sale agreement dated 03.01.2006 entered between the revision petitioner as purchaser and the accused Nos. 2 to 4/respondents as vendors in respect of property comprised in old Survey No.68, New Town Survey No.4870/1 measuring to an extent of 8 grounds and 1303 sq.ft of land and building situated at Dr. Nair road, T.Nagar, Chennai. The sale agreement stood entered between the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 through the power agent of the accused 2 and 3 namely Smt.Vijayasanthi, the 1st accused. The sale consideration was arrived at a sum of Rs.5.20 crores for which a sum of Rs.4,07,00,000/- was paid as advance by the revision petitioner to the 1st accused on 09.01.2006 on the date of sale agreement itself.

(3.) In furtherance of the sale agreement all the parental documents were handed over to the revision petitioner. Thereafter, when the revision petitioner approached the 1st accused as well as the other accused to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,13,00,000/- and execute the sale deed, it was intentionally evaded by them. Being so, it was found that during the subsistence of the sale agreement of the petitioner, the above extent of property was alienated to the 5th accused. It is significant to note that the very same 1st accused herein namely Vijayasanthi who acted as power agent of vendors, has alienated the above property in favour of the 5th accused. Moreover, it was found that the total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.2,56,28,750/- in the sale deed in favour of the 5th respondent.