R DAMODHARAN Vs. JEYANTHI SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016 made in A.S.No.74 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013 made in O.S.No.130 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tambaram.

(2.) The appellants are defendants in O.S.No.130 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tambaram, who lost in both the Courts below. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the respondent, the suit property was inherited by the appellants from the father of the first appellant and father-in-law of the second appellant as per the will dated 07.10.1998. The property originally assessed to the predecessor of the title to the appellants is six cents. The appellants agreed to sell the suit property to one B.R.Sekar or his nominee for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty five lakhs) and entered into an agreement of sale which was executed and registered on 03.08.2007. The appellants also executed a power of attorney dated 03.08.2007 in favour of B.R.Sekar in respect of the suit property. The said B.R.Sekar paid huge amounts to the appellants as advance. On measuring the property, the extent was found to be 4.25 cents and not six cents. The appellants agreed to reduce the sale consideration to Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs). The total amount was also paid to the appellants by the husband of the respondent and possession was handed over by B.R.Sekar and the agreement of sale entered into with B.R.Sekar reduced the terms into writing. The said B.R.Sekar by deed of sale dated 24.09.2008 sold to the respondent and handed over the possession to the respondent. The respondent got permission from the municipality to demolish the existing superstructure and put up new construction. The appellants, tried to interfere with the possession of the respondent, hence the suit.

(3.) The appellants filed written statement and denied all the averments in the plaint. According to the appellants, they appointed the said B.R.Sekar only to develop the property. The appellants handed over the original documents, the appellants vacated the tenants and retained the possession of the suit property. The said B.R.Sekar delayed developing the property and did not gave accounts to the appellants. The appellants cancelled the power of attorney on 010.2008 and issued notice to B.R.Sekar, husband of the respondent. The said B.R.Sekar, husband of the respondent did not return the original documents and on 15.10.2008, he came along with rowdy elements and threatened the appellants to re-execute the power of attorney. The appellants filed O.S.No.285 of 2008 against B.R.Sekar, the husband of the respondent. The said B.R.Sekar entered appearance through advocate and filed written statement with false averments. From the written statement, the appellants came to know that encumbrance was created by B.R.Sekar in favour of his wife, the respondent herein and the present suit is a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant against the said B.R.Sekar and prayed for dismissal of the suit.