CAPT K P RAJAGOPAL Vs. M RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellants were directed to re-convey the plot Nos.160 and 165 and Plot No.157 as requested by the Administrator in Company Application Nos. 1390 and 1391 of 2003 respectively in Company Petition No.13 of 2000.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/Administrator for seeking the relief of re-conveyance was that after appointment as Administrator of the said Company, it came to his knowledge that originally, Plot Nos.160 and 165 were sold to the appellant in O.S.A.No,264 of 2004 by sale deeds dated 27.6.1994 and 7.10.1994 respectively and Plot No.157 was sold to the appellant in O.S.A.No,265 of 2004 and subsequently, the appellant in O.S.A.No,264/2004 requested the company to allot plot Nos. 356 and 367 instead of Plot Nos. 160 and 165 and the appellant in O.S.A.No,265/2004 requested the Company to allot plot No,357 instead of Plot No.157. Considering the request made, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellant in OSA.No,264/2004 on 5.5.1997 in respect of Plot Nos. 356 and 367 and a sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant in OSA.No,265/2004 on 5.5.97 in respect of Plot No,357. Though it was assured by the appellants/purchasers that they would re-convey the plots originally allotted to them viz., Plot Nos. 160 and 165 and Plot No.157 respectively, they did not re-convey the same. Hence, the Administrator wrote a letter to the appellants on 10.12.2002 requesting them to send a xerox copy of the re-conveyance but it was not done. Under such circumstances, it became necessary to approach this Court seeking the order of re-conveyance.

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel, the letters placed by the Administrator was relied on by he learned Single Judge which was actually not written by the appellants. Hence, no evidentiary value could be attached to those documents. Under such circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge has got to be set aside.