RAMAJAYAM Vs. LAKSHMI MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in brief: 1.(a) THE defendant/respondent agreed to sell the suit properties to the petitioners and to one S.N. Navaneedhan under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2004 for a sum of Rs. 16,80,30,000/- and received a sum of Rs.5 Crores as advance and part of the sale consideration. 2.73 acres out of the properties is residential land and 15 acres 94 cents and 105 sq.ft., classified as industrial land. THE defendant assured to shift the machineries, demolish the existing building and make the property a vacant land. THE petitioners agreed to purchase the land to sell it as house sites or to sell it in bulk. It was also agreed that the defendant should give the petitioners a power of attorney to approach the authorities for reclassification, for layout approval etc., THE defendant did not comply with any of the basic terms of the agreement. THE defendant tendered the entire sale price, compensation etc. , by Bank Draft. But the defendant evaded receipt of the same with oblique motive. He did not demolish the building. THE land has not been reclassified as residential land without which the petitioner could not get lay out approval. THE defendant entered into a supplementary Memorandum of Understanding on 20.7.2005 and a Power of Attorney Deed on 27.07.2005. 1.(b) THE defendant has not complied with the basic and essential obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding and the supplementary Memorandum of Understanding. THE petitioners are entitled to file a suit for specific performance. In the meanwhile, the defendant was attempting to alienate or encumber the suit properties. Such attempt has to be prevented by interim orders and therefore they are constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. Hence the court may grant leave to file a suit for specific performance later within the period of limitation. Hence leave to file a suit for specific performance may be granted.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondent the following is the brief account of allegations:The petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. It is true that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 18.11.2004 and a supplementary Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 20.07.2005. But, it is false to state that this respondent did not comply with any of the basic terms of the agreement. It is also incorrect to allege that they tendered the entire sale price, compensation etc., by Demand Draft. The petitioners have to set out proper grounds for leave and prove the same. No such grounds are made out. They have not made out any case. Moreover, even without obtaining any leave, a suit for specific performance has been filed by persons other than the petitioners herein. The person by name R. Panneerselvam, who has filed the suit for specific performance has even made allegations as against his alleged assignor R. Ramajayam to the effect that the said R. Ramajayam is colluding with the respondent. Having made such a false allegations it is not open to the other petitioners to continue the petition with the participation of R. Ramajayam. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

(3.) SINCE the petitioners apprehended that the defendant has made hectic efforts to alienate the properties to third parties with a view to defeat and delay their lawful rights, they filed the present suit in O.S.No.705 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit properties. Subsequently, petitioners 2 to 4 and one Pannerselvam have filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.709 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore, seeking for specific performance of contract, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed over the suit properties in their favour on the strength of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.11.2004 and supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.07.2005 or in the alternative, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10,06,66,332/- with interest and also for creating a statutory charge over the suit properties under Section 55(d) of the Transfer of Property Act.