R PALANISUBRAMANIAN Vs. TRANS MEDICAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications are filed seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the applicant/tenant of the applicant and also from alienating the suit property to third parties.

(2.) THE applicant would contend that he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 29. 9. 2005 with the first respondent who was the owner of the flat bearing door No. 20, vasan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid as sale advance by the applicant to the first respondent so as to enable the first respondent to obtain the original title deeds of the suit property from Indian Overseas Bank by clearing the equitable mortgage by them. The first respondent also put the applicant in possession of the property. The agreement also permits the applicant either to use the property for his own purpose or to lease out the same to any third party. In July 2007, the applicant leased out the suit property to one Dr. V. Ramakrishnan. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as a tenant. There was an attempt on 7. 5. 2008 to dispossess the tenant from the suit property. The applicant made enquiries and came to know that the first respondent had sold the suit property to the second respondent on 11. 4. 2008, completely suppressing the subsistence of the sale agreement with the applicant. The applicant has already paid 85% of the sale consideration and he has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. After the sale of the suit property by the first respondent to the second respondent, the respondents are making attempts to dispossess the tenant inducted by the applicant in the suit property. They are also planning to alienate the suit property in favour of third party with a view to create further third party interest in the suit property. Hence, the reliefs assought for.

(3.) IN the common counter filed by the first respondent on behalf of both the respondents, it is contended that the first respondent, who is a Public Limited Company was the owner of the suit property. The first respondent was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property till 11. 4. 2008. When the same was sold to the second respondent, the first respondent Company delivered vacant possession of the suit property to the second respondent on the date of sale. No agreement for sale was entered into between the applicant and the first respondent company on 29. 9. 2005. The advance sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- was not received by the first respondent from the applicant. The question of dispossessing the alleged tenant through rowdy elements on 7. 5. 2008 did not arise as the possession of the property was given by the first respondent to the second respondent on 11. 4. 2008 itself. The applicant is making attempts to obtain an order from this court by creating fabricated documents. The suit in O. S. No. 3332 of 2008 on the file of the XI Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was filed by Dr. V. Ramakrishnan claiming to be the tenant of the applicant. I. A. No. 8107 of 2008 seeking ad interim injunction was dismissed on 16. 6. 2008 after hearing both the parties. Therefore, the respondents pray that the present applications may be dismissed.