Madras High Court
M/S N.Subhash Chand Jain Huf vs Visalakshi Suresh on 20 November, 2025
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and
Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022
M/s N.Subhash Chand Jain HUF
represented by its Karta
Mr.N.Subhash Chand Jain
10/6, Angadi Street,
V.P.Colony,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023 ... Plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019
1. Visalakshi Suresh
2. R.Muthukrishnan
3. G.Ramakrishna
4. A.K.S.Narayana Rao
5. A.V.S.Bhaskar
6. P.Sesha Reddy ... Plaintiffs in C.S.No.27 of 2022
Vs.
1. Visalakshi Suresh
2. A.V.S.Bhaskar
3. R.Muthukrishnan
4. G.Ramakrishna
5. P.Sesha Reddy
6. A.K.S.Narayana Rao
1/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
7. Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd.,
rep. By its Managing Director D.Dhinakaran
'Twin Towers', 305-E/170, T.T.K.Road,
Alwarpet,Chennai – 600 018
... Defendants in C.S.No.87 of 2019
1. M/s Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd.,
rep. By its Managing Director D.Dhinakaran
'Twin Towers', 305-E/170, T.T.K.Road,
Alwarpet,Chennai – 600 018
2.M/s N.Subhash Chand Jain HUF
represented by its Karta N.Subhash Chand Jain
No.20, North street,
Jinalaya Apartments,
VP.Colony,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023
3. D.Dhinakaran
Managing Director of M/s green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd.,
D13, Jain Sagarika Apartments, Sathyadev Avenue
MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028
nd
(2 defendant amended as per order dated 15.07.2024 in
App.No.2558 of 2024)
Prayer in C.S.No.87 of 2019:
The Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to pass a
2/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
Judgment and Preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the
defendants:-
(a) for the specific performance of the two registered sale
agreements bearing registration nos.3730 & 3731/2013 dated
19.09.2013 SRO, Anna Nagar, Chennai directing the defendants to
execute two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respect of
undivided 2/8th share in the suit A Schedule property (Suit C Schedule
property) on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.83,31,000/-
on each sale agreement and on their failure to do so this Court to
execute the two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respect
of the undivided 2/8th share in the suit A Schedule property
(Alternatively)
b) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of
Rs.51,57,173/- [Rupees Fifty One lakhs fifty seven thousand one
hundred and seventy three only) to the plaintiff together with interest @
24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
four lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
c) award cost of the proceedings and
3/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
d) pass such other reliefs.
Prayer in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022:
The Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to pass a
Judgment and Preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the
defendants:-
(a) To declare that any act done by the 1st defendant pursuant to
the Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012 registered as Document
No.1102 before SRO, Anna Nagar which was subsequently cancelled
vide Deed of Cancellation dated 08.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 registered
as Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Anna Nagar as Null and Void
in view of the 1st defendant's letter dated 26.01.2016, wherein he has
expressed his inability to continue with the project
(b) To consequentially declare that the sale agreement dated
19.09.2013 registered as Document No.3730/2013 before SRO Anna
st
Nagar executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of
the plaintiffs in favour of the 2 nd defendant as null and void.
4/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(c) To consequentially declare that the sale agreement dated
19.09.2013 registered as Document no.3731/2013 before SRO Anna
st
Nagar executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of
nd
the plaintiffs in favour of the 2 defendant as Null and void.
(d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the
defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession
(e) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the
defendants from in any way creating encumbrance over the suit
schedule property.
(f) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the
defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's rights to deal in
5/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )
C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
any manner including that of putting up construction as owners of the
suit schedule property
g) to pay the cost of the suit
h) to pass any such further orders
C.S.No.87 of 2019:
For Plaintiff : Mr.Shanger Murali for
Ms.S.Kushi
For Defendants : Mr.PL.Narayanan for
Mr.V.Praveen Kumar for D1 to D6
D7 – Notice served – No appearance
Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022:
For Plaintiffs : Mr.PL.Narayanan for
Mr.V.Praveen Kumar
For Defendants : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan for D1 and D3
Mr.Shanger Murali for
Ms.S.Kushi for D2
COMMON JUDGMENT
The suit in C.S.No.87 of 2019 has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of the two registered sale agreements dated 19.09.2013 directing the defendants to execute two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respect of undivided 2/8th share in 6/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 the suit A Schedule property (Suit C Schedule property) on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.83,31,000/- on each sale agreement and on their failure, to execute the two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff by this Court, Alternatively directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.51,57,173/- [Rupees Fifty One lakhs fifty seven thousand one hundred and seventy three only) to the plaintiff together with interest @ 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
2.The suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are defendants in C.S.No.87 of 2019 as against the defendants, who are plaintiffs in C.S.No.87 of 2019 for the following reliefs:-
st
(a) To declare that any act done by the 1 defendant pursuant to the Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012 registered as Document No.1102 before SRO, Anna Nagar which was subsequently cancelled vide Deed of Cancellation dated 08.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 registered as Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Anna Nagar as Null and Void 7/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 st in view of the 1 defendant' letter dated 26.01.2016, wherein he has expressed his inability to continue with the project
(b) To consequentially declare that the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 registered as Document No.3730/2013 before SRO Anna st Nagar executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of nd the plaintiffs in favour of the 2 defendant as null and void.
(c) To consequentially declare that the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 registered as Document no.3731/2013 before SRO Anna st Nagar executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of nd the plaintiffs in favour of the 2 defendant as Null and void.
(d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession 8/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(e) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the defendants from in any way creating encumbrance over the suit schedule property.
(f) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person making claim under the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's rights to deal in any manner including that of putting up construction as owners of the suit schedule property
g) to pay the cost of the suit
h) to pass any such further orders In fact, the C.S.No.87 of 2019 has been straight away filed by the plaintiff before this Court and as far as C.S.No.27 of 2022 is concerned, initially, C.S.No.404 of 2017 was filed before this Court and thereafter, it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.4767 of 2019 and again, the case was re-transfered to this Court and numbered as Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022. Further, as per the order 9/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 of this Court, dated 08.08.2023, joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in both the suits. C.S.No.87 of 2019 has been taken as main suit and common evidence was recorded in that suit. Therefore, common judgment is being passed.
3. The brief averments of the plaint in C.S.No.87 of 2019 are as follows:-
(i) The defendants 1 and 2 are joint owners of Suit 'A' schedule st property. The 1 defendant is the absolute owner of the Item No.1 of suit 'B' schedule properties through registered settlement deed dated nd 14.12.2011 and the 2 defendant is the absolute owner of the Item No.2 of 'B' schedule property through settlement deed dated 09.09.2009.
rd The 3 defendant is the absolute owner of the Item No.3 of 'B' schedule th property through registered sale deed dated 15.11.1988. The 4 defendant is the absolute owner of the Item No.4 of the suit 'B' schedule th property through settlement deed dated 17.06.2010. The 5 defendant is the absolute owner of the Item No.5 of the suit 'B' schedule property th through Settlement Deed dated 11.02.2008. The 6 defendant is the 10/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 absolute owner of the Item No. 6 of the 'B' schedule property through sale deed dated 10.08.1988. As such, the Item Nos.1 to 6 of suit ‘B’ schedule properties are residential flats constructed in the suit 'A' Schedule property.
(ii) The defendants 1 to 6 entered into joint development agreement dated 29.10.2012 with 7th defendant in respect of suit 'A' schedule property. As per the said joint development agreement dated 29.10.2012, the defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to retain 1/8th undivided th share each and they are jointly entitled to 6/8 undivided share in the th suit 'A' schedule property and the 7 defendant is entitled to 2/8th undivided share in the remaining suit 'A' schedule property. In pursuance to the said joint development agreement, the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 have executed a registered Power Deed dated 29.10.2012 in th favour of the 7 defendant in respect of the Item Nos.1,3,4 and 6 of the nd 'B' schedule properties. The 2 defendant had executed a registered Power Deed dated 14.11.2012 at New York, USA and the same was th adjudicated on 05.12.2012 at SRO, Anna Nagar in favour of 7 defendant in respect of Item No.2 of 'B' Schedule Properties. 11/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th
(iii) The 5 defendant had executed registered Power of Attorney dated 09.11.2012 at State of New Jersey, USA and the same was adjudicated on 05.12.2012 at SRO, Annanagar in favour of the 7th defendant in respect of Item no.5 of suit 'A' Schedule Property, therefore, all the defendants 1 to 6 specifically authorised 7th defendant th to sell 2/8th undivided share in the suit 'A' schedule property. The 7 defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of undivided 2/8th share in the 'A' schedule property and entered into two registered sale agreements dated 19.09.2013 and the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,90,62,000/- [Rupees one crore ninety lakhs sixty two thousand only].
(iv) At the time of sale agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten lakhs only] for each agreement and totally paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs only]. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the agreement and totally he paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- out of sale consideration of Rs.1,90,62,000/-, the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of 12/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th Rs.1,66,62,000/-. The 7 defendant had demolished the then old structures in the suit 'A' schedule property, after obtaining demolition order from the Corporation of Chennai and the 'A' schedule property is now lying vacant. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his th part of contract, as per the registered sale agreements, but the 7 defendant insisted the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration at the time of commencement of the construction of the suit 'A' schedule th property. The 7 defendant required the balance sale consideration only at the time of construction and the same will be utilised for construction of building. Hence the plaintiff was waiting for commencement of construction in the suit 'A' schedule property and to th pay the balance sale consideration at that time. The 7 defendant informed the plaintiff, that only on obtaining the planning permission for th putting up construction in the suit 'A' schedule property, the 7 defendant will be in a position to execute necessary construction agreement in the proposed flats to be conveyed to the plaintiff and the th plaintiff was also waiting for the 7 defendant in obtaining building plan approval and license from the concerned authorities. The defendants 1 13/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 to 6 are all well aware of the above said registered salce agreement in th favour of the plaintiff executed by the 7 defendant.
th
(v) The 7 defendant informed the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 6 had already received certain amounts, thereby they have executed th the Power of attorney Deeds in favour of the 7 defendant and authorised to sell their 2/8th undivided share. In the meantime, the plaintiff learnt that the defendants 1,3,4 and 6 have cancelled the registered Power of Attorney through cancellation deed dated nd 08.10.2015. The 2 defendant also cancelled Power of Attorney deed through cancellation deed dated 27.01.2016. The said cancellation of Power of Attorneys came to knowledge of the plaintiff on receipt of the lawyers notice dated 22.10.2016 issued by the defendants 1 to 6. the subsequent cancellation of the aforesaid power of attorney deeds will not absolve the defendants' liability to execute two registered sale deeds. After issuance of legal notice, the defendants, promised to execute two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff after settling th the issue with the 7 defendant and after finding the developer to develop the suit 'A' schedule property when they were contacted by the 14/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was kept silent and not intended to take any action.
(vi) Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 6 filed a suit in C.S.No.404 of th 2017 against the 7 defendant and one N.Subhash Chand Jain HUF in his individual capacity and after receipt of summons, the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 to 6 and expressed his readiness and willingness to get sale deeds registered in their favour in respect of the undivided 2/8th share in the 'A' schedule property. But the defendants represented that the filing of the suit is to cancel the joint development th agreement already entered into with the 7 defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is not to be worried about the prayers sought in that suit, viz., C.S.No.404 of 2017. Believing the said representations, the plaintiff has not filed any written statement in that suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the written statement disputing the claim of the defendants.
(vii) The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration and to get the sale deeds registered in 15/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 their favour. Therefore, the plaintiff has caused notice dated 08.11.2017 calling upon the defendants 1 to 6 to execute the sale deed after receipt of balance consideration. The sale agreements were entered into on 19.09.2013 and the period for completion of sale was fixed at 18 th months, but the 7 defendant insisted the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of commencement of construction in the suit 'A' schedule property property, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance in respect of the undivided 2/8th share in the suit ‘A’ schedule property (Suit ‘C’) schedule property).
4. The brief averments of the written statements filed by the defendants in C.S.No.87 of 2019 are as follows:-
(i) The defendants denied each and every averment contained in the plaint, save those that are specifically admitted hereinafter and those which are not admitted, the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.
The suit is abuse of process of court. The plaintiff is a financier, who advances money to the builder and obtains an agreement of sale as a 16/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 security documents and once the builder repays the money financied by him, he cancels the agreement. The plaintiff was already involved in th several suits before this Court. Moreover, the power granted to the 7 th defendant does not empower the 7 defendant to enter into the th agreement of sale. The plaintiff and the 7 defendant colluded jointly and filed this suit. The power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 does not th empower the 7 defendant to borrow any money against the property to be developed and as per the terms of contract, it is implied that 'D' schedule property in the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 can be sold to the prospective purchaser of flat only when the construction is effectively taken off.
th
(ii) Per contra, in this case, not even brick has been laid by the 7 defendant and in fact, he has rescinded from the contract in and by its letter dated 29.08.2016. It is true that the defendants entered into the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 on the false promises th made by the 7 defendant regarding delivery of project and aesthetic design and appearance, quality of execution of work, cost effectiveness, 17/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th timely execution and transparency in transactions. The 7 defendant failed to carryout even a single promises made by them, since the date of Joint Development Agreement.
th
(iii) When the 7 defendant did not oblige to the joint development th agreement, the 7 defendant's right under the Power of Attorney to sell 2/8 th undivided share in the suit 'A' schedule property cannot be th enforced. The defendants held a meeting on 08.11.2013, where the 7 defendant accepted to handover the constructed building on or before 10.04.2015. However, the 7th defendant had miserably failed to fulfill the promise. The defendants came to know about the existence of sale agreements only at a later point of time, the intention of the plaintiff and th the 7 defendant is to defeat the legitimate rights of the defendants and th create encumbrance over the property. The plaintiff and the 7 defendant have conspired and illustrated a drama with malafide intention to cheat the defendants and to rob their property. 18/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(iv) Already all the defendants have filed a suit in C.S.No.404 of 2017 and the same was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S.No.4767 of 2019, once again the said suit was transferred to this Court and numbered as C.S.No.27 of 2022, which is filed to declare the Power of Attorney, which was cancelled and sale agreements as null and void. The defendants have not received any th single penny from the plaintiff or the 7 defendant till date, therefore, the sale agreements are void and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. The brief averments of the plaint in Tr. C.S.No.27 of 2022 are as follows:-
(i) The plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit properties. The st rd 1 defendant through the 3 defendant approached the plaintiffs for joint development of suit property by demolishing the existing building and construction of multi storied building in the suit property. The plaintiffs and the defendants had entered into the joint development agreement dated 29.10.2012.
19/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(ii) The plaintiffs 1 to 6 are joint owners of Suit 'A' schedule st property. The 1 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.1 of suit 'B' schedule properties through registered settlement deed dated th 14.12.2011 and the 5 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.2 of 'B' schedule property through settlement deed dated 09.09.2009. The nd 2 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.3 of 'B' schedule rd property through registered sale deed dated 15.11.1988. The 3 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.4 of the suit 'B' schedule th property through settlement deed dated 17.06.2010. The 6 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.5 of the suit 'B' schedule property th through Settlement Deed dated 11.02.2008. The 4 plaintiff s the absolute owner of the Item No. 6 of the 'B' schedule property through sale deed dated 10.08.1988. As such, the Item Nos.1 to 6 of suit properties are residential flats constructed in the suit 'A' Schedule property.
(iii) As per the joint venture agreement, the project shall be st completed with in 18 months from the date of demolition. The 1 defendant had made false promise regarding aesthetic design and 20/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 appearance and quality of execution of work, cost effectiveness, timely execution and transparency in transactions. Based on the above said promises, the plaintiffs were induced by the defendants to enter into st Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 with the 1 defendant to develop the suit property into a residential apartment complex. The defendants failed to comply with the various terms of agreement. The plaintiffs have executed power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 appointing st the 1 defendant as power agent on the bonafide belief that the defendants would adhere to their obligations and promises made by them, both in the proposal and joint development agreement had st reposed confidence on the 1 defendant herein and authorised the 1st defendant herein to demolish the existing building and develop it into a residential apartment.
st
(iv) The 1 defendant had inordinately delayed in obtaining the st demolition and reconstruction approvals and the 1 defendant had brought down the existing building after obtaining approvals only on 05.11.2013 and after demolition, no efforts had been taken to 21/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 commence the construction of the residential apartments. As per the terms of Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012, after serious st persuasion during the meeting held on 08.11.2013, the 1 defendant had accepted and promised to complete the construction and handover st the constructed building on or before 10.04.2015, however, the 1 defendant did not take any steps to commence the construction actively as promised. Therefore, the plaintiffs sent a letter dated 12.05.2015 expressing their intention to cancel the Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012.
st
(v) The 1 defendant on 16.07.2015 had issued a legal notice seeking extention of time till December, 2015. Even after providing st sufficient time and opportunity to the 1 defendant, there was no positive response from them in respect of construction of the apartments, therefore, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 had cancelled the power of st attorney given to the 1 defendant, through cancellation deed dated st nd 31.10.2015. In the meanwhile, the 1 defendant in collusion with the 2 st defendant entered into agreement of sale dated 19.09.2013 and the 1 22/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 defendant mis-used the power of attorney granted to him and entered nd into sale agreement with the 2 defendant. The power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs was only in line of joint development st agreement dated 29.10.2012 and the said power upon the 1 defendant st is only a reciprocal promise and only if the 1 defendant performed the terms under the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 and the power of attorney cannot be independently exercised.
st nd
(vi) The 1 and 2 defendants in collusion and connivance with
each other and with an intent to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiffs had fraudulently brought the agreement of sale into existence.
st Thereafter the 1 defendant by letter dated 26.01.2016 expressed their inability to proceed with the construction activity and rescinded the st contract. The above said conduct of the 1 defendant would show the st malafide intention of the defendants in cheating the plaintiffs. The 1 defendant cannot have the benefit of agreement of sale dated st 19.09.2013. It is the responsibility of the 1 defendant to cancel the 23/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 registered agreement of sale, which is otherwise elapsed by efflux of time.
(vii) Already, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 22.10.2016 to the defendants to cancel the Agreement of Sale dated 19.09.2013, but the defendants have not sent any reply, therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this Suit.
6. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the defendants 1 and 3 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are as follows:-
(i) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed with costs. These defendants deny the execution of letter dated 26.01.2016.
(ii) It is true that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the st properties, the 1 defendant has approached the plaintiffs through the rd 3 defendant for construction of multi-storyed building. The plaintiffs after negotiating various grounds had entered into joint development 24/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 agreement on 29.10.2012 and not on any inducement as stated in the plaint. The averment in the plaint with respect to the clause of the agreement are admitted and the completion of contract have been extended between the parties orally and also by the act of parties. The plaintiffs had executed the power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 st appointing the 1 defendant as their power agent and in fact, there was a delay in handing over the vacant possession of the said building, because of the said delay in handing over vacant possession, st particularly the father of the 1 plaintiff refused to vacate and there was st dispute between the father and daughter, Visalakshi Suresh, 1 plaintiff herein. The inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiffs and particularly in violation of terms and conditions. As agreed in the joint venture agreement, the defendants had obtained an order of demolition from the concerned authorities on 28.10.2013.
(iii) It is admitted that the meeting was held on 08.11.2013 and in st the said meeting, the 1 defendant had accepted to complete the st construction on or before 10.04.2015, but it is false to state that the 1 25/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 st defendant did not take any steps as per the promise. The 1 defendant applied for granting patta for the 'A' schedule property and after inspection and measurements taken by the Revenue authorities, the patta was granted on 19.12.2013 by the revenue authorities and the patta is one of the basic documents for obtaining building plan approval, st therefore, there is no delay on the part of the 1 defendant. The plaintiffs had sent a letter dated 12.05.2015 and the same was suitably replied through the legal notice dated 16.07.2015. Therefore, the cancellation of power of attorney deed executed by the plaintiffs is not valid in the eye of law and there is no collusion between the defendants, st as alleged in the plaint. The 1 defendant entered into sale agreement nd with the 2 defendant on 19.09.2013 and there is no misuse of power of attorney as alleged in the plaint. The execution of above said sale nd agreement in favour of the 2 defendant is very well known to all the plaintiffs and in no point of time they have raised any objections. Therefore, the suit as against these defendants is liable to be dismissed.
26/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 nd
7. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the 2 defendant in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are as follows:-
nd
(i) The 2 defendant was not aware of the transaction that transpired between the plaintiffs and the builder at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 and also at the time of registered General Power of Attorney deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the Builder. The builder has been authorised to sell 2/8th th undivided share in 'A' Schedule property and the remaining 6/8 share has been retained by the plaintiffs towards their share. Pursuant to the registered Power of attorney deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favour nd of the builder, the 2 defendant entered into two registered sale agreements with the builder on 19.09.2013. The sale price was fixed at nd Rs.1,90,62,000/-, on the date of agreements, the 2 defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for each agreement, totally Rs.20 Lakhs was nd paid to the builder and subsequently the 2 defendant paid Rs.2 Lakhs for each of the agreement and totally Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the nd builder. Thus, the 2 defendant had paid totally a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- towards advance of sale consideration, therefore, the 27/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 nd 2 defendant is liable to pay the remaining sale price of Rs.1,66,62,000/-
(ii) At the time of execution of sale, the builder demolished the then old structure in the 'A' schedule properties and now the 'A' nd schedule properties are lying vacant. The 2 defendant is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, as per the sale agreements, bu the builder has failed to perform his part of contract and failed to obtain building plan approval and license from the competent authorities. The plaintiffs are well aware of the above registered sale nd agreements executed by the builder in the name of the 2 defendant. The said registered sale agreements have been executed in favour of nd the 2 defendant from the currency of the power of attorney deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the builder.
nd
(iii) The 2 defendant is a bonafide intending purchaser and the said sale agreements are genuine, valid and enforceable and binding on the plaintiffs. The subsequent cancellation of power of attorney 28/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 deeds will not absolve the plaintiffs' liability to execute two registered nd sale deeds upon receipt of balance sale agreement in favour of the 2 nd defendant as per sale agreement deeds. The 2 defendant has got every reason to suspect that the plaintiffs in collusion with the builder nd issued notice and filed the above suit in order to deprive 2 defendant's legitimate rights to get the sale deeds registered in his favour. Therefore, the plaintiffs being owner of 'A' schedule properties are nd bound to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the 2 defendant upon receipt of balance sale price from him. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not in consonance with the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and there is no cause of action to file the suit and hence suit is liable to be dismissed.
nd
(iv) The 2 defendant had entered into two sale agreements with st the 1 defendant and not in his individual capacity, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 29/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
8. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire records, this Court on 08.08.2023, framed the following common issues in both the suits for trial:-
i) Whether the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 entered between the plaintiff and defendants in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is true, valid and genuine?
th
ii) Whether the 7 defendant in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is authorised to enter into Sale Agreement in respect of the suit property by virtue of the Power of Attorney executed in his favour?
iii) Whether the Power of Attorneys alleged to have been th executed in favour of the 7 defendant in C.S.No.87 of 2019 dated 29.10.2012, 14.11.2012 and 09.11.2012 are true and valid?
iv) Whether D1 to D6 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 had extended the time for performance of the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013?
v) Whether the plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
vi) Whether the plaintiffs in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is entitled to get relief for specific performance?
30/99https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
vii) Whether the case in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties?
viii) Whether the suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is barred by limitation?
ix) Whether the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are entitled to get the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed?
x) Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is correct?
xi) To what reliefs if any the plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019 and the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are entitled to?
9. As far as the issues are concerned, it is not proper to frame common issues in both the suits, in each suit, the issues have to be framed separately, however, during the joint trial, evidence can be adduced commonly. Therefore, for better appreciation and effective disposal of both the Suits, this Court re-casted the issues in both the suits separately.
(a) The re-casted Issues in C.S.No.87 of 2019 are as follows:- 31/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
1.Whether the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 entered into th between the plaintiff and 7 defendant, as Power of Attorney Agent of 1 to 6 defendants, is true, valid and genuine?
th
2.Whether the 7 defendant was authorised to enter into a Sale Agreement in respect of the suit property by virtue of the power of attorney executed in his favour?
3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4.Whether the defendants 1 to 6 had extended time for performance of Sale Agreement dated 19.09.2013?
5.Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of specific performance of contract.
7.To what other relieves the plaintiff is entitled to? 32/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(b) The re-casted Issues in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are as follows:-
1. Whether the sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 entered into nd st between the 2 defendant and 1 defendant, as power of attorney agent of plaintiffs, is true, valid and genuine.?
st
2. Whether the 1 defendant is authorised to enter into the sale agreement in respect of the suit property by virtue of the power of attorney executed in his favour?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration that st any act done by the 1 defendant pursuant to the Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012 registered as Document No.1102 before SRO Anna Nagar, which was subsequently cancelled vide Deed of Cancellation dated 08.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 registered as Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Anna Nagar st as Null and Void in view of 1 defendant’s letter dated 33/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 26.01.2016, wherein he has expressed his inability to continue with the project?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration that the Sale Agreement dated 19.09.2013 registered as Document st No.3730/2013 before SRO Anna Nagar Executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs in favour nd of the 2 defendant as null and void.?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for declaration that the Sale Agreement dated 19.09.2013 registered as Document st No.3731/2013 before sRO Anna Nagar executed by the 1 defendant as General Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs in favour nd of the 2 defendant, as null and void?
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of property?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as against the defendants from securing any encumbrance over the schedule properties?.34/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
10.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the plaintiffs' right to deal with any manner including that of putting up construction as owners of the suit schedule properties?.
11. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct?
12. To what other relieves, the plaintiffs are entitled to? For the sake of convenience and brevity, the plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is referred as 'plaintiff' and the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 are referred as 'defendants'
10. As far as the re-casted issues are concerned, already, the plaintiffs in both the suits have filed the pleadings and also adduced evidences in respect of the issues, now, this Court has not framed any additional issues and only re-casted the issues in each of the case separately, therefore, the parties are aware about the issues and already, they adduced evidences on their side respectively. Therefore, adducing of further evidence based on the re-casted issues does not 35/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 arise, hence, this Court is inclined to pass Common Judgement with the available evidences and records.
11. Pursuant to the joint trial ordered by this Court on 11.10.2023, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.15. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and marked Exhibits Ex.D.1 to D.30.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of nd 2019 and 2 defendant in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 would submit as follows:-
(i) The defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit properties through registered documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and the defendants 1 to th 6 entered into joint development agreement with the 7 defendant through Ex.D.8 and based on the said Ex.D.8, the defendants 1 to 6 executed three registered Power of Attorney deeds, Exs.P.7 to P.9 in th favour of the 7 defendant. As per the development Agreement, Ex.D.8, th th the defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to 6/8 share and the 7 defendant is 36/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 entitled to remaining 2/8th share in the undivided suit 'A' schedule th property, which is shown as suit 'B' schedule property. The 7 defendant, based on Exs.P.7 to P.9, [three registered power of attorney deeds], entered into two registered sale agreements with the plaintiff vide Exs.P.10 and P.11.
(ii) The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheques th and Rs.4,00,000/- by cash totally paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- to the 7 defendant as advance for the total sale price of Rs.1,90,62,000/- and agreed to pay the balance sale price after the commencement of the construction in the suit 'B' schedule property and on execution of the registered sale deed in its favour in respect of the suit 'B' schedule th property. The 7 defendant, after obtaining demolition order, viz., Ex.D.13, has not commenced the construction work in the suit 'B' schedule property. In the meantime, the defendants 1 to 6 cancelled th the registered power of attorneys given to the 7 defendant by two registered cancellation of power of attorneys, Exs.P.12 and 13. 37/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(iii) The defendants 1 to 6 issued notice to the plaintiff through Ex.P.14 and thereafter, the plaintiff had several negotiations with the defendants 1 to 6 to resolve the dispute amicably. The Ex.P.15, reply notice issued by the plaintiff specifically mentioned the ingredients that the 1 to 6 defendants filed a suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 to declare any th act done by the 7 defendant pursuant to the power of attorney, which was subsequently cancelled as null and void and consequently to declare two registered sale agreements Ex.P.10 and P.11 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants there in from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property therein and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their right to deal with the suit property.
(iv) The plaintiff has filed a suit in C.S.no.87 of 2019 for specific performance of the two registered sale agreements / Exs.P.10 and P.11 38/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 upon receipt of balance sale price or alternatively prayed for the advance amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded and evidenced that he has been always ready th and willing to perform his part of contract and the 7 defendant also not denied the execution of agreements after receipt of advance amount. Further, the cancellation of power deeds were subsequent to the execution of sale agreement deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are liable to execute sale agreement deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have not pleaded about the granting decree of specific performance would cause hardship to them, as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, mere inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to deny the relief of specific performance and the court has got discretionary power to grant relief of specific performance or not. Even the esclation of the sale price is not a ground to deny the relief of specific performance.
(v) It is not the case of the defendants that the registered sale agreements are not supported by any consideration and the plaintiff is 39/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 not willing to perform his part of contract. The defendants 1 to 6 have raised a plea of fraud, thereby the burden of proof is on them to prove the alleged fraud, but they miserably failed to prove the alleged fraud. The two sale agreements are registered and as per Section 60 of the Registration Act and there is a presumption in respect of execution of those documents and the defendants are not entitled to adduce evidence in respect of the registered documents as per Sections 90 and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(vi) As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, a suit for specific performance shall be filed within a period of three years when the time limit is fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. As per Joint th Development Agreement, the 7 defendant is empowered to execute sale agreement in respect of Schedule D therein /the suit B schedule th property in the suit. As per Clause 18(h), the 7 defendant is entitled to execute sale deed after obtaining building plan in respect of Schedule D therein/ the suit B Schedule property therein. As per the power of 40/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th attorney/ Ex.D7, the 7 defendant is specifically authorised to enter into sale agreement and to receive advance amount in his name in respect of the Schedule D therein / the suit B Schedule property therein.
th
(vii) The 7 defendant has not cancelled the two registered sale agreements, during the currency period of power of attorney deed. As per Section 204 of the Indian Contract Act, the principal is empowered to cancel the power of attorney when it was not exercised by the power agent. If the power agent partly exercised his power, the same cannot be cancelled and it binds the principal. The agreements were executed during the currency of the power of attorney deeds, therefore, the defendants 1 to 6 being principals are liable to execute sale deeds to perform their part of contract.
(ix) The suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is bad for non-joinder of nd necessary parties, as they had impleaded the 2 defendant in his individual capacity. When the agreement was executed in favour of M/s. N.Subhash Chand Jain HUF, the defendants' side witnesses 41/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 D.Ws.1 and 2 are mere agents and accordingly, they cannot depose evidence in respect of the events that happened prior to the execution of the power deed in their favour. Further, they cannot depose any evidence in respect of the events prior to the execution of power deed in their favour. The defendants 1 to 6 have not entered into witness box, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against them. Therefore, the suit in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is liable to be decreed by granting decree for specific performance of contract and suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of nd 2019 and 2 defendant in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 relied on the following Judgments :-
1. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217 [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., & Others]
2. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 595 [Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani] 42/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
3. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 2191 [M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors]
4.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1982(1) SCC 4 [Smt.Gangabai Vs. Chhabubai]
5. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 10 SCC 231 [P.S.Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.K.Bhagyalakshmi and Another]
6.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (19) SCC 175 [Damodhar Narayan Sawale Vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske and Ors]
7.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 8 SCC 420 [Motilal Jain Vs. Smt.Ramdasi Devi and Ors.,]
8.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 312 [Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari & Anr.] 43/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
9. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 401 [M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs. Rajagopal Hebbar & others]
10. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) (5) SCC 403 [Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan]
11. The Judgment of this Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 746 [Nanjappa Gounder & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar]
12. The Judgment of this Court reported in (2014) 1 CTC 165 [M.Sekar Vs. P.Madeswaran]
13. The Judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 4 LW 674 [Mannarsamy Naaicker and another Vs. Nagammal and Ors.]
14. The Judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (1) MEN Civil 489 [R.Jothi Vs. N.Neelavathi] .
14. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 6 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 and plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 would submit as follows:-
(i) The plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019 has filed a suit for specific performance based on two documents with respect of undivided 2/8th 44/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 share in the suit schedule property or alternatively direct the defendants to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- together with 24% interst per annum. The plaintiff in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is a financier, who advance money to the builder and obtains an agreement of sale as a security documents and once the builder repays the money financed by him, he cancels the agreement, which is his modus operandi. The plaintiff is involved in several suits pending before this Court. Moreover, th the power granted to the 7 defendant does not empower him to enter th into any agreement of sale and the plaintiff and the 7 defendant colluded each other jointly put in efforts to drag the suit property into th litigation, while the 7 defendant is unfairly making money out of it.
(ii) The power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 does not empower th the 7 defendant to borrow any money against the property to be th developed. The 7 defendant based on the joint development agreement dated 29.10.2012 not even laid a single brick and has rescinded from the contract in and by its letter dated 26.01.2016. The defendants are the absolute owner of the property and they entered into 45/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th joint venture agreement with the 7 defendant to develop the property on 29.10.2012. As per the joint development agreement, the project shall be completed within 18 months from the date of handing over the suit property for demolition. As per Clause 12 of the Joint Development Agreement, the building complex has to be completed within 18 months, but not even brick has been laid. As per Clause19, the developer assured and confirmed that he shall not enter into any agreement anyone or in any way convey / transfer / assign the property or any part thereof in violation of any of the terms of this Agreement. As per Clause 36, the developer shall not assign, transfer and / or encumber any of his rights and obligation under this agreement without prior written consent of the owners and any such attempted assignment shall be null and void, therefore, as per Clause 36 of the Joint Development Agreement, without written consent of the other flat owners, the developer cannot execute any deeds. The sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 is not genuine and valid th
(iii) The 7 defendant had no legal right to enter into agreement of sale and there is no consideration for the above said sale agreement, 46/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 as per Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, agreement without consideration is void. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the consideration was passed through the said agreements, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. The agreements of sale are not bonafide transaction and the agreements of sale are vague, as it does not speak about construction of sale. The said agreements can be treated only as a security document for loans advanced to the builder. The plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands seeking relief of specific performance of contract. The said payment of Rs.24 Lakhs has not been supported by any documents.
(iv) The agreement of sale is dated 19.09.2013 and the time stipulated for completion of contract is 18 months and the due date is 18.03.2015, but the suit was filed in the month of October, 2018, therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff has not filed the suit immediately, after the notice issued to the defendants dated 22.10.2016, the plaintiff has waited for five years from the date of agreement of sale and not proved the readiness and willingness. 47/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(v) The power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012 is only an agency document, which cannot be acted upon beyond the rights conferred in the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012. Therefore, the developer has no right to develop any part or whole of his share, which is only a deemed clause, which will blossom only after construction. The defendants 1 to 6 were not aware about the transaction between the th th plaintiff and the 7 defendant and only after admission by the 7 defendant that he had borrowed money from the plaintiff and created encumbrance over the subject property and they put to knowledge of the same. They were not aware about the encumberance and immediately after the knowledge, they filed the suit in Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 challenging the said documents.
(vi) As per the agreement dated 19.09.2013, 18 months time was granted and after completion of 18 months, plaintiff has not issued any notice to the defendants by expressing his willingness to purchase his 48/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 property after paying balance of sale consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and there th was money dealing between the plaintiff and the 7 defendant and if th any amount borrowed by the 7 defendant, it is for him to repay the said amount, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief through this suit and as far as the suit filed by the defendants 1 to 6 is concerned, nd the plaintiffs have filed an application to amend the name of the 2 defendant in the plaint and the same was allowed and the name was corrected as M.Subash Jain, HUF from Subash Jain, therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
(vii) Already the defendants cancelled the power of attorney th deeds executed by them in favour of the 7 defendant through separe cancellation deeds dated 03.12.2015 and 08.10.2015 respectively.
th Further, the 7 defendant had issued letter dated 22.10.2016 expressing to withdraw from the project and surrender the property to the owners, therefore, the suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is well within the limitation period, therefore, the defendants 2 to 6, being original owner of the 49/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 properties are entitled to decree as prayed for in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 and the suit in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed.
(ix) The learned counsel appearing for the Defendants 1 to 6 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 relied upon the following Judgments in support of his contentions:
a) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 3 SCC 1 [K.S.Vidyandam and Ors. Vs. Vairavan]
b) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 18 [Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakshmi and Others]
c) Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004 (4) CTC 375 [Ranganatha Gounder Vs. Sahadeva Gounder]
c) Judgment of this Court reported in Manu/TN/7549/2021 [C.Rathnam and Ors., Vs. Green Avenue Homes and Gardens and Ors., ] 50/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
15. Answers to the Re-casted Issue Nos.1 and 2 in both the Suits and Issue Nos. 6 and 7 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022:
(i) In these cases, there is no dispute that the suit properties belong to defendants 1 to 6 and they are the absolute owners of their respective shares. There is no dispute that the defendants 1 to 6 and th 7 defendant entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 for construction of apartments in the 'A' Schedule properties. The entire properties has been shown as 'A' schedule properties, in which the defendants 1 to 6 have shares through settlement deeds as well as sale deeds. The defendants 1 to 6 entered th into Joint Development Agreement with the 7 defendant for construction of apartment and as per Joint Development Agreement, the properties, have to be divided into eight parts and each of the defendant are entitled to 1/8th share and in total, the defendants 1 to 6 are entitled th th to 6/8 share and the remaining 2/8th share belongs to the 7 defendant.
51/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(ii) Pursuant to the above said Joint Development Agreement th entered into between the defendants 1 to 6 and 7 defendant, the th defendants 1 to 6 executed a Power of Attorney deed in favour of the 7 th defendant in respect of the share of 2/8th share of the 7 defendant. The said Joint Development Agreement, was executed for the purpose of developing the property by way of construction and the Power Deed dated 28.09.2012 was executed by the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of th the 7 defendant for re-construction and to deal with the properties th including the sale of properties. In the meantime, on 19.09.2013, the 7 defendant, who is the power of attorney holder in respect of his 2/8th share over the properties had entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of his share. The Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 has been marked as Ex.D.8. The Power of Attorney th in favour of the 7 defendant by the defendants 1 to 6 has been marked as Ex.D.7. The agreements in the name of the plaintiff executed by the th 7 defendant have been marked as Exs.P.10 and P.11. The said th execution of agreement have not been denied by the 7 defendant. The th 7 defendant, who executed the agreements in favour of the plaintiff 52/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 admitted execution of the agreements, whereas the defendants 1 to 6 th denied the right of the 7 defendant to execute the said agreements.
(iii) On a careful perusal of the Exs.P.10 and P.11, they revealed th that the 7 defendant, Power Agent on behalf of the principals/ Defendants 1 to 6, had executed agreements of sale in respect of the 'B' Schedule property covered under the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 and the power deed dated 28.09.2012. The recitals th of the agreement shows that the 7 defendant, on behalf of the defendants 1 to 6 sold the 1/8th share amounting to 706 Sq.Ft., out of 5648 sq.ft., which is mentioned as 'E' Schedule property. The sale price was fixed as Rs.95,31,000/- and paid advance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and the remaining amount of Rs.85,31,000/- shall be paid on or before expiry of 18 months. The vendors have handed over the vacant possession of the 'E' Schedule Property on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of the purchaser. The purchaser also agreed for completion of sale within a period of 18 months. The 'E' schedule property has been mentioned as 50% of Undivided share of land of 53/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 1412 Sq.Ft., [706 sq.ft., of the 'B' schedule property] and both the documents were executed on the same day. Each of the document contain same recitals in respect of all premises.
th
(iv) The 7 defendant, power agent has been mentioned as M/s Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, D.Dhinakaran, therefore, the plaintiff know very well about the th purpose of power given to the 7 defendant. It is the duty of the plaintiff to verify about the particulars of the property prior to purchase. The principle of Caveat Emptor is applicable to the plaintiff. Though the defendants have not denied the execution of exhibits Exs.P.10 and P.11 and sale agreements in favour of the plaintiff by the power agents of th defendants 1 to 6, namely, 7 defendant, the 1 to 6 defendants have th denied the right of execution of deeds by the 7 defendant. According to the defendants 1 to 6, they entered into joint development agreement th with the 7 defendant dated 29.10.2012 for the purpose of construction of buildings and for construction of buildings, they have given 2/8th 54/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th shares to the 7 defendant and he is entitled to the share of 2/8th shares over the properties, only after completion of construction.
(v) At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Ex.D.8, Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012 between the Defendants 1 th to 6 and 7 defendant. As per the Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012, Clause 10 refers about 'Developer's Entitlement'. The Clause 10 'Developers Entitlement' reads as follows:-
“10. The Developer shall be entitled to enter into agreement/s for sale of the property and flats described in Schedule 'D' and Schedule 'F' hereunder, with prospective purchasers at such price and on such terms and conditions as the Developer may deem fit. The Developer shall be exclusively entitled to receive in his name and account the moneys that are paid or payable under such agreements for the property and flats described in Schedule 'D' and Schedule 'F' respectively. The Owners shall execute and register a General Power of Attorney pertaining to the aforesaid schedule 'D' property in favour of the Developer. 55/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 Notwithstanding anything contained herein, in the event of a conflict in the terms contained in the said General Power of Attorney and this Agreement, the parties hereby agree and declare that the terms of this Agreement shall prevail and have an over-riding effect over the General Power of Attorney. The Developer hereby agrees that the developer shall enter into any agreement for transfer of Schedule 'D' property only after receipt of the written approval for the Building Plan from CMDA / DTCP / Competent Planning authority. The General Power of Attorney executed by the Parties shall be duly stamped and registered at thesole cost and expense of the Developer.
As per the said clause, the developers shall be entitled to enter into agreements for sale of the property and flats described in schedule 'D' and 'F' with prospective purchasers at such price and on such terms and conditions, as the Developer may deem fit.
(vi) The owners shall execute and register the General Power of Attorney pertaining to the above said 'D' schedule property in favour of the developer. The developer hereby agrees that the Developer shall enter into any agreement for the transfer of the Schedule 'D' property only after receipt of Written Approval for the building plan from CMDA / 56/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 DTCP competent planning authority. Therefore, the origin of execution th of power of attorney deed in favour of the 7 defendant by the defendants 1 to 6 is based on Joint Development Agreement.
(vii) As per Clause 10 of Joint Development Agreement, the owners shall execute registered general power of attorney pertaining to the 'D' schedule property. In the same clause 10, there is a condition clause that the developer shall enter into any agreement for transfer of schedule 'D' property only after receipt of any written approval from the competent authorities, but in this case, there is no any evidence that the th 7 defendant obtained any building plan from CMDA /DTCP competent authority prior to entering into agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff ought to have verified as to whether building plan from competent authority was obtained to full fill the condition of Joint Development Agreement.
(viii) Further more, there is a separate clause in the said Joint Development, viz., Clause 16 in respect of the 'Power of Attorney'. As per Clause 16(a), the owners agree to execute Power of Attorney in the 57/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 name of the developer to proceed with the process of obtaining approvals including building approvals from CMDA / DTCP/Competent Planning Authority dealing with the government department and other bodies to enter into agreements for sale with prospective purchaser/s for sale of the undivided share in the property described in the schedule 'D' suit property. In the same Clause 16(a) there is a condition to handover the possession of the undivided share in the property 'D' schedule to the prospective purchaser to deal with the government department and other bodies connection with the development of the property and not for any other purpose, i.e., mortgaging, pledging, re- alienating, transferring, transacting, lien, etc., The developer shall have only a restricted right developing the property of the developer shall not undertake any activity detrimental to the interest of the owners.
(ix) Further, in Clause 16 (c) of the Joint Development Agreement it is indicated that the owners shall not cancel the said power of attorney till all the objectives under the Development Agreement are achieved by the parties and without written statement / consent from the Developer, 58/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 subject to the Developer acting in a bonafide owner and not committing breach of any of the terms of the agreement. Therefore, from the above said Clause 10 and 16, it is very clear that the power was given to the th 7 defendant based on the Joint Development Agreement.
(x) That apart, in the Joint Development Agreement in Clause 18, some obligations for the Developer has been mentioned, as per Clause 18(h), the Developer shall enter into any sale deed for transfer of Schedule 'D' and 'F' property only after receipt of written statement approved and duly sanctioned building plan from competent authorities. Further, in the said Joint Development Agreement dated 29.10.2012, there is a Clause 36 'Assignment' and as per the said clause, the developer shall not assign, transfer and or encumber any of his rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written statement / consent of the owners and any such attempted assignment shall be null and void.
59/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th
(xi) The plaintiff who entered into agreement with the 7 defendant, who is the power agent of the defendants 1 to 6 very well aware about the existence of Joint Development Agreement between th the 1 to 6 defendants and 7 defendant, therefore, power deed th executed in favour of the 7 defendant in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement, is for the purpose of developing the properties th and after development, the 7 defendant is entitled to sell the properties. As per the power deed dated 29.10.2012, there is a clause in inner page no.4 that whereas to enable the power agent to develop the property in accordance with the requirements of the principals and upon the terms and conditions to be agreed separately. We the Principals are executing the present Power of Attorney in favour of Power Agent to act for and on our behalf and in our name to do all acts and things relating to the said property.
(xii) Also, in Clause 1 of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 29.10.2012 it is categorically mentioned that 'To reconstitute the Item Nos. 1 to 4 along with adjacent flats of same block of the schedule 'B' 60/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 property, to get it reclassified, as the case may be for developing the same by reconstructing thereon residential apartments for the Principals and the power agent. Further, Clause 7 reads as follows:-
“To advertise for sale, negotiate, fix and finalise the sale consideration for the sale of 'D' schedule property in the reconstituted property in divided / undivided shares and to receive advance payment and issue valid receipt thereof.”
(xiii) Besides the above, as per Clauses 8 and 9, in which Clause '8' permits to enter into agreement for sale with prospective purchaser/s and Clause '9' permits the Power of Attorney agent to sell the 'D' schedule property. On conjoint reading of the conditions in the power deed shows that the right was given for the re-constituted property. The power agent was authorised to finalise consideration and negotiate in respect of 'D' schedule property and re-construct the property, therefore, th the recitals of the power deed shows that 7 defendant is authorised to convey the property only after re-construction of the property, ie., after construction of the building, but in this case, there is no any building constructed by the 7th defendant. As the plaintiff admitted that they 61/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 entered into agreement based on the power deed and in the power deed, the Joint Development Agreement also referred and therefore, the plaintiff, ought to have knowledge about the joint development agreement and power of attorney deed. As per recitals of the power of attorney deed the purpose of giving power was to construct residential apartment for the principal and power agent, therefore, the recitals of the power deed shows that the power agent had power only after construction of the buildings. Therefore, the agreements in favour of the plaintiff are not valid and binding upon the 1 to 6 defendants.
(xiv) It is true that the agreement was signed by the power agent of the defendants 1 to 6, however, the said power deed was executed as per the Joint Development Agreement and it was entered between the parties for construction of buildings in the properties. Therefore, the Court has to see the intention of the parties from the Joint Development Agreement as well as the power deed. The conjoint reading of the joint development and power deed, they clearly establish that the Joint development Agreement was entered for development of property i.e., for construction of building and the power deed was executed to sell the 62/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 property after reconstruction, but no properties were developed, therefore, the plaintiff after seeing the Joint development agreements cannot enter into an agreement, without any approval of plan and construction.
(xv) Furthermore, on a careful perusal of the above said agreements, they revealed that two sale agreements were entered on 19.09.2013 for each of the agreement Rs.10 lakhs was paid, but according to the plaintiff, thereafter, for each of the agreement, two th lakhs was paid to the 7 defendant and there is no specific date mentioned as to which date, the said amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was paid and there is no any receipt for the above said amount. Further, the plaintiff has not taken any steps within 18 months time fixed through the agreement and the said 18 months time lapsed on 19.03.2015, but the plaintiff has not even taken any steps to get the sale deed or for return of advance. In this context, the plaintiff's contention is that the developer agreed to receive the balance amount at the time of 63/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 construction, but he has not taken any steps for construction, therefore, he waited.
th (xvi) The plaintiff and the 7 defendant, being unknown persons, th how the 7 defendant agreed to receive amount at the time of construction, there is no recitals in the agreement in respect of the above conditions to repay the amount, whereas the recitals of the agreement shows that the remaining sum of Rs.85,31,000/- in each agreements have to be paid within 18 months. The above said conduct of the plaintiff shows that after knowing the recitals of the Joint Development agreement and power deed executed in favour of the 7th defendant entered into agreements. Since the plaintiff agreed to purchase the properties of vacant site, he need not wait for the other formalities and there are no conditions in the agreement in respect of the plan and other formalities, therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his case and after knowing the contents of the Joint Development Agreement and the power deed, he entered agreement with the 7th defendant and the said agreement are not genuine, so far as 1 to 6 64/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 defendants are concerned. However, the 7th defendant has not raised objection and he himself admitted the execution of agreements in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the agreement is binding upon the 7th defendant.
xviii) At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied upon Section 204 of Indian Contract Act:
Section 204: Revocation where authority has been partly exercised.
“The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised, so far as regards such acts and obligations as arise from acts already done in the agency” th (xix) The power deed itself has not authorised the 7 defendant to execute any deeds and there is a condition that after obtaining the building plan from the concerned authorities, the 7th defendant was permitted to execute any deeds. Under the said circumstances, the said provision is not applicable to rescue the plaintiffs' case. 65/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 (xx) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff argued that the defendants have not entered into witness box to subject them for cross examination and the power agents alone were examined as DW1 and DW2, therefore, the power agents cannot depose about the personal knowledge of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove their case and adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. To substantiate his contention he relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 2 SCC 217 [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., & Others]. On a careful perusal of the said Judgment it is clear that if the power of attorney holder has rendered some acts in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly he cannot depose for the principal in respect of matter of which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross examined. Further, where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states 66/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.
(xxi) In the case on hand also the defendants have not examined as witnesses and not subjected them for cross examination and the power agents of the defendants were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2. However, the case is based on the documents and the plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement has to discharge his initial burden to prove the genuinity of the agreement but in this case, plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and the power agent th 7 defendant has no authority to enter into agreement, therefore, the said Judgment is no way helpful to decide the case in favour of the plaintiff.
(xxii) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied the following Judgments:-
1. M.Sekar Vs. P.Madeswaran (2014) 1 CTC 165. On a careful perusal of the said Judgment, it is clear that had the amount received by 67/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 the party towards loan he could have executed only a promissory note or a mortgage deed and there could be no need to execute the registered agreement for sale and to entrust his original sale deed relating to the property to the other party. But in the case on hand the th original document was not handed over to the plaintiff by the 7 defendant and the defendants have failed to prove the money th transaction between the plaintiff and the 7 defendant.
2. Mannarsamy Naaicker and another Vs. Nagammal and Ors.] [Mannarsamy Naaicker and another Vs. Nagammal and Ors.] (2009) 4 LW 674. In the said Judgment it is held that when a party to a document admits its due execution, then he cannot turn around and challenge the terms contained therein:
3. Nanjappa Gounder & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (2013) 3 SCC 746
4. Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani reported in (2003) 6 SCC 595
5. M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors] reported in AIR 2007 SC 2191 68/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
6. Smt.Gangabai Vs. Chhabubai reported in 1982(1) SCC 4
7.P.S.Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.K.Bhagyalakshmi and Another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 231
8. R.Jothi Vs. N.Neelavathi reported in 2017 (1) MEN Civil 489
9. Damodhar Narayan Sawale Vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske and Ors reported in 2023 (19) SCC 175
10. Motilal Jain Vs. Smt.Ramdasi Devi and Ors., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 420
11. Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari & Anr. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 312
12. M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs. Rajagopal Hebbar & others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 401
13. Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan reported in (2012) (5) SCC 403 On a careful perusal of those Judgments, it is clear that the Agreement is in writing that too in the form of a registered document under Section 92 of Evidence Act, a party to the agreement shall not be permitted to lead oral evidence to vary the terms of the contract incorporated in the 69/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 written and registered document, there is a presumption under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act that a certificate under Section 60(1) signed by the Registration officer shall be admissible for proof that the document has been duly registered in the manner provided under the Act and the facts mentioned in the endorsement referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned. Further, when the intention of the parties are reflected in a registered document and in the absence of contra intention, oral evidence would not orverride the registered document, merely the plaintiff claimed alternative relief of recovery of return of advance would not dis-entitle him to claim specific performance of the contract, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a Court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings and if the averments made in the plaint not denied in written statement would be deemed to be admitted and in a case of specific performance hardship is a good defence provided such defence is taken by the defendant and evidence in support of such defence is brought on record. In the case th on hand, the available documents and evidences show that the 7 defendant was not authorised to sell the property without obtaining plan 70/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 th and permission from the authority concerned and also the 7 defendant has to obtain prior consent from the principal. Therefore, the agreement itself is not binding on the 1 to 6 defendants and is not enforceable against them.
(xxiii) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants also relied on the Judgment reported in Manu/TN/7549/2021 [C.Rathnam and Ors., Vs. Green Avenue Homes and Gardens and Ors., ]. On a careful perusal of the said Judgment, it is clear if the parties to the Joint Development Agreement breached the terms and conditions, the Joint Development Agreement became unenforceable and the same can be decreed as null and void. After breach of terms and conditions of any sale deed agreed by the builder without consent of the owner in violation of the Joint Development Agreement the said documents also th become null and void. In the case on hand, the 7 defendant was not authorised to sell the property without consent of the 1 to 6 defendants and not even obtained plan and approval for construction of building. The plaintiff after knowing the joint development agreement entered into sale agreement.
71/99https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 In view of the said discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the sale agreements dated 19.09.2013 entered between the plaintiff and the th 7 defendant are not genuine and not binding upon the defendants 1 to th 6 at the same time, they are binding upon 7 defendant.
16. Answers to the re-casted Issue Nos. 4 and 5 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 :' 4. Whether the defendants 1 to 6 had extended time for performance of sale agreement dated 19.09.2013' '5. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract' th
(i) According to the plaintiff, the 7 defendant on behalf of 1 to 6 defendants, as a power agent executed a sale agreement dated 19.09.2013 and thereafter the 1 to 6 defendants cancelled the power th given to the 7 defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff contacted 1 to 6 defendants and stated about his sale agreement. The 1 to 6 defendants assured to execute sale deed and represented that they are searching another builder to construct the building and after finalising the new builder they will execute the sale deed as per agreement and 72/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 believing the said representation he waited for some time but the 1 to 6 defendants failed to perform their part of contract. The 1 to 6 defendants denied the said contention of the plaintiff. While so the plaintiff has to prove his said contention but no sufficient evidence adduced by him. In the absence of concrete evidence to prove, the alleged extention of time by the plaintiff, it is not proper to accept the plaintiff’s case with regard to the extention of time by the 1 to 6 defendants. In view of the same, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants 1 to 6 extended the time for performance of sale agreement dated 19.092013.
(ii) The plaintiff has filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract based on two agreements. The main requirement for ordering specific performance is readiness and willingness. According to the plaintiff, he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants are evading from execution of sale deed. 73/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(iii) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff has categorically pleaded in the plaint in respect of readiness and willingness, but the defendants have not specifically denied any readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness. This Court already in the previous issues decided that the agreements are not genuine and they are not binding upon the defendants 1 to 6, therefore, the readiness and willingness would not arise at all.
(iv) It is well settled law that as far as relief of Specific Performance is concerned, it is discretionary relief and the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness from the date of agreement. The agreement was entered on 19.09.2013 and the stipulated time for completion of contract is 18 months, which lapsed on 19.03.2015. In the meantime, the defendants 1 to 6 also issued notice to the plaintiff through Ex.P.14 on 22.10.2016, even after knowing about the notice and the entitlement of the power agent, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to get the sale deed in his favour and he filed a suit in the year 74/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 2018, i.e., 09.10.2018, therefore, the plaintiff's contention that he has been always ready and willing to perform contract is not acceptable. The plaintiff ought to have taken steps immediately after lapse of 18 months, but he has not taken any steps and even after receiving notice from the defendants 1 to 6, the plaintiff has not immediately filed the suit and only after two years, he has filed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract after repayment of sale price.
(v) The learned counsel appearing for the defendant also relied the Judgment in [Ranganatha Gounder Vs. Sahadeva Gounder] reported in 2004(4) CTC 375, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
39. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Chand Rani Vs. Kamal Rani, 1993 (1) S.C.C.519, “ It is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable 75/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 time if the conditions are :(1) from the express terms of the contract; (2) from the nature of the property; and (3) from the surrounding circumstances.” In other words, the Court should look at all the relevant circumstances including the time-limit(s) specified in the agreement and determine whether its discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised in favour of the party who approached the Court of Law within a reasonable time.
40. What is the definition of the word ‘reasonable’? It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The ‘reasonable time’ is to be so much time as is necessary under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case.” In the case on hand also the date of agreement is 19.09.2013, time for completion is 18 months and the time lapsed on 19.03.2015. Thereafter the defendants issued notice on 22.10.2016 and then filed suit in the Month of February, 2017, the plaintiff also appeared and defended the said suit, but this suit was filed on 09.10.2018, after three years and six 76/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 months. Therefore, the said case Law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In view of the above distinguished Judgment, the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness. Thus the issues are answered.
17. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.3 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 'Whether the suit is barred by limitation?'
(i) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement dated 19.09.2013 and the time stipulated for completion of contract is 18 months and the said 18 months period lapsed on 19.03.2015. As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for specific performance contract is three years. The suit has been filed on 21st October, 2018, after three years and six months, therefore, the suit has been filed after three years of limitation period. However, the plaintiff sought for return of advance and for return of advance the limitation is 12 years, therefore, the suit is within the limitation period.77/99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
(ii) At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.21000 of 1993 dated 17.12.1999 [Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co., (P) Ltd., and Ors] On a careful perusal of the said Judgment it is clear that the period of limitation for enforcement of statutory charge created under Section 55(6)(b) is 12 years from the date when becomes due and not 3 years. The period remains the same even for enforcement of the charge on the substituted security.
(iii) Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation, in respect of return of advance amount, however, the suit is barred by limitation in respect of specific performance of contract. It is well settled law that the suit cannot be dismissed in entirety and if any one of the relief is maintainable, the suit is maintainable, in respect of that relief. 78/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
18. Answers to the re-casted Issue No. 6 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 'Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of specific performance of contract :
(i) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract, based on agreement dated 19.09.2013 and this Court in the previous issue decided that as far as relief of specific performance of contract is concerned, suit has not been filed within a limitation period of three years and the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation period and also this Court decided in the previous issue that the agreement was not valid and it is not binding upon the D1 to D6.
Furthermore, this Court in the previous issue decided that the plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract.
(ii) Learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property and time fixed to get 79/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 sale deed is 18 months but even after completion of 18 months from the date of agreement failed to get sale deed in his favour. Then the the time is not essence of contract the plaintiff ought to have performed his part of contract within reasonable time. But he approached the Court after 42 months, therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of Specific Performance of contract. Further, he relied the following Judgments:-
i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 3 SCC 1 [K.S.Vidyandam and Ors. Vs. Vairavan]
ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 18 [Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakshmi and Others] On a careful perusal of these Judgments it is clear that even though time is not the essence of contract of sale of immovable properties and suit can be filed within 3 years, but it should be performed within a reasonable time having regard to terms of contract prescribing a time limit. A purchaser can no longer take a shelter under the principle that 80/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 time is not essence in performance of contract relating to the immovable property to cover his delay, latches, breaches and non-readiness.
(iii) In the case on hand also the plaintiff has not approached the Court within the period of limitation and he failed to perform his part of contract within reasonable time. Therefore, the said case laws are squarely applicable to this case. In view of the said discussion and the said Judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. Thus the issue is answered.
19. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.7 in C.S.No.87 of 2019 : To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
(i) The plaintiff has sought for the relief of specific performance of contract and alternative relief of return of advance amount and this Court in the previous issue decided that the relief in respect of specific performance is barred by limitation and plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and agreement itself is not genuine and will not bind upon defendants 1 to 6, therefore, the plaintiff 81/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 is not entitled to any relief as against the defendants 1 to 6, however, the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the 7th defendant only received the money based on the agreement and the 7th defendant also not contested the case. This Court also in the previous issue decided that the agreement is not binding upon defendants 1 to 6 at the same time it will bind upon 7th defendant, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of recovery of money as against the 7th defendant.
th According to the plaintiff, he paid money to the 7 defendant though th agreements to the tune of Rs.10Lakhs on each agreement. The 7 defendant has not contested the suit and he was set exparte. Though th the 7 defendant executed sale agreement on behalf of 1 to 6 th defendants, as power agent, the 7 defendant was not authorised to sell the property without consent of the 1 to 6 defendants. The defendants 1 to 6 also denied the agreement, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to th money decree for the amount paid to the 7 defendant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as against the defendants 1 to 6 in respect of specific performance and the plaintiff is only entitled to alternative relief of money decree as against the 7th defendant. 82/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
20. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.3 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 : 'Whether the suit is barred by limitation'?
(I) The plaintiffs have filed the suit as against the defendants for the relives of declaration in respect of power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 and consequently to declare sale agreements dated 19.09.2013 executed by the power agent of the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the properties and also from creating any encumbrance and to deal with in any manner putting up construction over the suit schedule property.
(ii) The alleged Sale agreements have been executed on 19.09.2013 and the defendants 1 to 6, being the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 came to know about the deeds only in the year 2016. Though the plaintiffs have pleaded that they only came to know about the deeds after the year 2016. Here, according to the plaintiff, they came to the knowledge about the deeds after the year 2016, 83/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 however, they cancelled the power deed through the cancellation deeds dated 08.10.2015 and 31.10.2015, therefore, this Court can infer that they came to the knowledge about the agreements and then only they th have cancelled the power of attorney given to the 7 defendant and the suit has been filed on 03.02.2017, therefore, the suit is within the period of limitation, thus the issue is answered.
21. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.4 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 : 'Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties'?
The defendants have taken a plea that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has filed the suit in the personal capacity of Subash Jain, whereas the agreement entered in the name of M/s Subhash Jain HUF represented by its Kartha nd subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, the said name of the 2 defendant in the suit has been amended and Kartha of joint family M/s N.Subhash Jain HUF has been included and represented by its 84/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 Kartha N.Subhash Jain, therefore, after amendment, suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, thus the issue is answered.
22. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.5 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 : '.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration st that any act done by the 1 defendant pursuant to the Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2012 registered as Document No.1102 before SRO Anna Nagar, which was subsequently cancelled vide Deed of Cancellation dated 08.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 registered as Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Anna Nagar as Null and Void st in view of 1 defendant’s letter dated 26.01.2016, wherein he has expressed his inability to continue with the project?
The plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 sought for declaration declaring that any act done by the 1 st defendant pursuant to the power of attorney dated 29.11.2012, which would subsequently cancelled through cancellation deeds dated 08.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 as null and void in view of the 1st defendant's letter dated 21.07.2016. According to the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022, after the execution of 85/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 the Joint Development agreement, the builder was unable to construct the building and thereby they cancelled the power deed, through cancellation deeds dated 08.10.2015 and 31.12.2015 and thereafter, the builder also executed letter dated 21.06.2016 by expressing his inability to continue the project, if any act done by the builder pursuant to the power of attorney deed dated 29.10.2012, after his letter dated 26.01.2016 is null and void. There is no specific incident mentioned in the plaint and without any specific incident, the prayer of declaration cannot be granted and the prayer should be specific in respect of specific act, but here, the plaintiff has sought for declaration any act done by the 1st defendant pursuant to the power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 and the blanket order cannot be granted, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, thus the issues are answered.
23. Answers to the re-casted Issue Nos.8 to 10 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 : '8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of property?' '9. Whether the plaintiffs 86/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 are entitled for permanent injunction as against the defendants from securing any encumbrance over the schedule properties' '10.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the plaintiffs right to deal with any manner including putting up construction as owner of the properties?
(I) The plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 has sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also from creating any encumbrance over the property and also from interfering with the plaintiffs' right dealing with any manner including the plaintiffs' right including that of putting up construction as owner of the 'C' schedule property.
(ii) As far as the above said prayers are concerned, there are no pleadings that the defendants in the suit in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 had attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property and they also attempted to create encumbrances and 87/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 interfering with the plaintiffs' right in putting up construction as owners of the property, without any pleadings and evidence in respect of the interference as alleged by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled to such reliefs and there is no cause of action for grant of those injunctions and the defendants have never stated that they are in possession of the property and there is no evidence that the plaintiff attempted to put up construction and the same was restrained by the defendants in the suit. There is no evidence that they created encumbrance over the property and they also attempted to interfere with the plaitniffs' possession of the property, therefore without any cause of action and without any pleadings or evidence for the alleged interference made by the defendants, it is not appropriate to grant permanent injunction and if any interference is made and if any cause of action arose in future, it is for the plaintiffs to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. As on date of presentation of the plaint, there is no cause of action for the prayers sought for in respect of permanent injunction. 88/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
24. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.11 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 '11. Whether the Court Fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct'?
The plaintiff has filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction and as far as the 1 st relief, viz., declaration in respect of the subsequent acts done pursuant to the power of attorney dated 29.10.2012 is concerned, the plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 25(d) of Tamilnadu Court Fees Evaluation Act and paid the court fee. The plaintiff valued the suit for Rs.45,30,101/- and paid under Section 25(d) of Tamilnadu Court Fees Evaluation Act. Therefore, the valuation for payment of court fee in respect of the 1st relief is correct. With regard to the 2nd and 3rd reliefs, the plaintiff sought for declaration of documents as null and void and the plaintiff valued the claim for Rs.10 Lakhs, since the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was paid through the document under Section 25(d) and paid the correct fee for Rs.10 Lakhs. The court fee ought to have been paid under Section 40 of Tamilnadu Court Fees Evaluation Act, as per the document, the value was fixed at Rs.10 Lakhs, therefore, the court fee has to be paid under Section 40, 89/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 however, there is no change in quantum of court fee and mere wrong quoting of provisions for payment of court fee itself is not a bar to grant relief to the parties, therefore, the payment of court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. As far as other relieves are concerned, the Court fee has been paid under Section 27(C) of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and that same is in accordance with the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. Thus the issue is answered.
25. Answers to the re-casted Issue No.12 in Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 '12. To what reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to'?
This Court in the previous Issue Nos.1 to 11 decided that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relieves through this Suit. In view of the said discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the sale agreements dated 19.09.2013 entered between the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are not genuine and not binding upon the defendants 1 to 6 at the same time, it is binding upon 7th defendant’ 90/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 In the result, the suit in C.S.No.87 of 2019 is dismissed as against the defendants 1 to 6 in respect of specific performance and as far as the alternative relief of recovery of money is concerned, the plaintiff is th entitled to money decree as against 7 defendant for a sum of Rs.51,57,173/- at the rate of 12% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, 6% rate of interest from the date of decree till the date of realization of amount.
In the result, Tr.C.S.No.27 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be n order as to costs.
20.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order ssd 91/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022
1)List of Witness Examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1. P.W.1 – N.Subhash Chand Jain
2)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
Exhibits Date Description
Ex.P.1 '14.12.2011 Deed of settlement executed by
Mrs.M.Unnamalai in favour of mrs.Visalakshi Suresh (Document No.4422/2011 before SRO, Anna Nagar) Ex.P.2 09.09.2009 Deed of settlement executed by Mrs.A.Varalakshmi in favour of Mr.A.V.S.Bhaskar (Document No.3018/2009 before SRO Anna Nagar) Ex.P.3 '15.11.1988 Sale deed executed by TNHB in favour of Mr.R.Muthukrishnan (Document No.5095/1988 before SRO Annanagar) Ex.P.4 '17.06.2010 Deed of settlement executed by Mr.G.Hanumaiah in favour of G.Ramakrishna (Document No.2118/2010 before SRO anna Nagar) Ex.P.5 11.02.2008 Deed of settlement executed by Mrs.P.Dhanalakshmi in favour of P.Sesha Reddy (Document No.481/2008 before SRO, Anna Nagar) Ex.P.6 10.08.1988 Sale deed executed by TNHB in favour of the A.K.S.Narayanan Rao (Document NO.3382/1988 before SRO Anna Nagar) 92/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 Ex.P.7 29.10.2012 Deed of Power of Attorney (Document No.1102/2012 before SRO Anna Nagar) executed Ms.Visalakshi Suresh, R.Muthukrishnan, G.Ramakrishna and A.K.S.Narayanan Rao in favour of Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., Ex.P.8 '14.11.2012 Deed of Power of Attorney (Document No.1102/2012 before SRO Anna Nagar) executed by A.V.S.Bhaskar in favour of Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., Ex.P.9 '09.11.2012 Deed of Power of Attorney executed by P.Sesha Reddy in favour of Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., Ex.P.10 19.09.2013 Sale agreement executed by power agent Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., in favour of M/s N.Subash Chand Jain HUF – Document No.3730/2013 Ex.P.11 19.09.2013 Sale agreement executed by power agent Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., in favour of M/s N.Subash Chand Jain HUF – Document No.3731/2013 Ex.P.12 08.10.2015 Registered cancellation of general power of attorney (Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Annanagar) given to Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., executed by Ms.Visalakshi Suresh, R.Muthukrishnan, G.Ramakrishna and A.K.S.Narayanan Rao Ex.P.13 31.12.2015 Cancellation of General Power of Attorney given to Green Avenue Homes (P) Ltd., executed by A.V.S.Bhaskar by adjudication no.9 of 2016 Ex.P.14 22.10.2016 Lawyers Notice issued by the defendants 1 to 93/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 6 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.15 08.11.2017 Legal notice issued by the plaintiff counsel to the defendants 1 to 7 along with returned postal covers (2 nos.) and tracking receipts
3)List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendants:-
D.W.1 – R.Perumalswamy D.W.2 – M.J.Raman
4)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendants:-
Exhibits Date Description
Ex.D.1 10.08.1988 Registered sale deed executed by TNHB in
favour of the 4th (Document no.3382/1988
before SRO Anna nagar)
Ex.D.2 15.11.1988 Registered sale deed executed by TNHB in
favour of the 2nd plaintiff (Document
no.5095/1988 before the SRO, Anna nagar)
Ex.D.3 11.02.2008 Registered deed of settlement executed by
P.Dhanalakshmi in favour of the 6th plaintiff (Document no.481 of 2008) before SRO, Anna Nagar) Ex.D.4 17.06.2010 Registered deed of settlement executed by Mr.G.Hanumaiah in favour of the 3rd plaintiff (Document No.2118/2010 before SRO Anna Nagar) Ex.D.5 14.12.2011 Registered deed of settlement executed by st Mrs.N.Unnamalai to the 1 plaintiff (Document 94/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 No.4422/2011 before SRO Anna Nagar) Ex.D.6 22.12.2011 Proposal letter for joint venture project by the defendant to the plaintiffs Ex.D.7 29.10.2012 Registered Deed of Power of Attorney (Document No.1102/2012 before SRO Anna Nagar) executed plaintiff 1 -4 in favour of the 1st defendant Ex.D.8 29.10.2012 Development agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant Ex.D.9 31.10.2013 Baseline Schedule given by the 1st defendant Ex.D.10 19.09.2013 Agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff (through their power agent first defendant) and the second defendant Ex.D.11 19.09.2013 Agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff (through their power agent first defendant) and the second defendant Ex.D.12 07.10.2013 Minutes of the meeting between the plaintiffs and the first and third defendant Ex.D.13 05.11.2013 Planning permission (demolition) issued by the Corporation of Chennai to the 1st defendant Ex.D.14 19.12.2013 Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Purasaiwakkam – Perambur Taluk to Plaintiffs Ex.D.15 19.03.2014 Email sent by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant Ex.D.16 12.05.2015 Letter sent by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant Ex.D.17 16.07.2015 Legal notice sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs seeking extention of time Ex.D.18 08.10.2015 Registered cancellation of general power of attorney (Document No.4571/2015 before SRO Anna Nagar) given to the 1st defendant executed by the plaintiffs 1-4 95/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 Ex.D.19 31.12.2015 Cancellation of general power of attorney given to the 1st defendant executed by the 5st plaintiff and general power of attorney executed by the 5th plaintiff to and in favour of the 3rd plaintiff by adjudication no.9 of 2016 Ex.D.20 26.01.2016 Letter sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs Ex.D.21 13.09.2013 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.22 22.10.2016 Legal Notice sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants along with acknowledgement cards Ex.D.23 29.10.2011 General power of attorney executed by the 6th plaintiff to and in favour of R.Perumalsamy Ex.D.24 15.01.2017 General power of attorney executed by the 5th plaintiff to and in favour of G.Ramakrishna Ex.D.25 28.03.2024 Encumbrance Certificate from the period 01.01.2012 to 27.03.2024 Ex.D.26 07.12.2024 Authorization letter issued by R.Muthukrishnan Ex.D.27 07.12.2024 Authorization letter issued by A.V.S.Bhaskar represented by his power agent, G.Ramakrishna Ex.D.28 07.12.2024 Authorization letter issued by G.Ramakrishana Ex.D.29 07.12.2024 Authorization letter issued by A.K.S.Narayanan Rao Ex.D.30 09.12.2024 Authorization letter issued by Visalakshi Suresh 96/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 20.11.2025 To The Sub Assistant Registrar, O.S.Section, High Court, Madras 97/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 P.DHANABAL, J.
ssd C.S.No.87 of 2019 & Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 98/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm ) C.S.No.87 of 2019 and Tr.C.S.27 of 2022 20.11.2025 99/99 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/12/2025 06:17:57 pm )