S.R.M. INSTITUTION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, P. RAVI, S/O. T.R. PACHAIMUTHU, NO. 3, VEERASAMY STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI Vs. B. NEMI CHAND JAIN, FLAT NO. 602, 6TH FLOOR, RAJ VAIBHAV APARTMENTS, NO. 76, E.V.K. SAMPATH SALAI, VEPERY, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Review Application taken out to review of the order dated 30.09.2008 made in C.M.A. (MD) No. 1126 of 2008. By the said order, this Court set aside the order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli non-suiting respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, for the relief of injunction restraining the review petitioners from putting up construction pending disposal of the Suit in O.S. No. 82 of 2008 and directed the parties to maintain status quo.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 herein, as plaintiffs, filed O.S. No. 82 of 2008 before the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.05.2007. The case is that respondents 1 and 2 herein entered into an agreement with respondents 3 to 5 for purchase of the property which is the subject matter of the suit, for a total consideration of Rs. 6,68,38,500.00 on 16.05.2007. On 17.05.2007 a sum of Rs. 1,63,00,000.00 and on 30.06.2007 another sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 were paid as advance. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid on or before 31.07.2007. The agreement could not be completed within the stipulated date as respondents 3 to 5 did not clear the cloud cast upon the title of 'B' schedule property. While that being so, on 23.01.2008 respondents 1 and 2 received Caveat Petitions by which they came to know that respondents 3 to 5 sold the property to the review petitioners. Respondents 3 to 5, without clearing the title of 'B' schedule property, sold a part of the property to the review petitioners. The review petitioners started putting up construction in the property purchased by them. On that basis, respondents 1 and 2 filed a Suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.05.2007 and sought for injunction pending Suit.

(3.) Respondents 3 to 5 resisted the Injunction Application before the Trial Court on the ground that the agreement was not intended for the sale of the property. The plaintiffs, respondents 1 and 2 herein, are money lenders. Respondents 3 to 5 had money transaction with respondents 1 and 2. In order to secure the transaction, respondents 1 and 2 obtained a sale agreement on the promise to return the original sale deed on payment of loan. Even in the agreement, it was agreed by respondents 1 and 2 that if there is any encumberance over the property, respondents 1 and 2 had the option to revoke the agreement and to claim the amount with compound interest at the half yearly rests at the rate of 15%. Knowing fully well that respondents 3 to 5 have no title to the 'B' schedule property, they incorporated the same in the agreement. Thus, the agreement came into existence in the compelling reason. The original documents were never handed over to secure the loan transaction. To return the document, respondents 1 and 2 demanded Rs. 8.5 crores without any basis. The transactions between respondents 3 to 5 and respondents 1 and 2 are only money transactions. A dispute arose in that regard. The Suit was filed knowing fully well that the property has been sold to the review petitioners.