Madras High Court
G.Jeyakrishna vs A.Ram Mohan
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
2025:MHC:1847
C.S. No. 672 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
01.07.2025 01.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S. No. 672 of 2016
G.Jeyakrishna, S/o.K.Ganesan
Flat No.6, Sri Ganesh, No.47, 1st Main Road
Rajalakshmi Nagar, Velachery
Chennai-600042. ...Plaintiff
Vs.
A.Ram Mohan, S/o.M.Amirthalingam
AV Villa, 922-H, First Street
Vanavil Nagar, Thiruvannamalai-606604. ...Defendant
Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side and Order
VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for judgment and
decree against the defendant
(a) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of
Rs.1,40,85,441/- together with interest at 12% per annum from
the date of filing of this plaint till date of payment;
(b) to pay the costs of the suit; and
(c) to pass such or other orders as this Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Umapathy
For Defendant : Mr.K.Kannan
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm )
C.S. No. 672 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed seeking a judgment and decree against the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,85,441/- together with interest 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the payment and for costs of the suit.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had conveyed a property bearing Plot No.5, Subramanian Colony in an approved layout LPDM/DTP No.16/1973 totally measuring 3600 sq.ft. in T.S. No. 10, Old Survey No. 317/63, formerly Survey No. 317/1 part, Block No.188, Velachery for a total consideration of Rs.1,44,00,000/- by a Sale-deed dated 15.07.2013 registered as Document No.4149 of 2013 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Velachery.
3. It had been contended that the plaintiff had paid an additional sum of Rs.1,36,00,000/- to the defendant towards development charges. In the plaint, it had been stated that the defendant had covenanted that there was no encumbrance over the property. Further, the defendant had also agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against any claim, which may arise owing to 2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 defect in the title.
4. It had been further stated that however, the defendant had conveyed the property to the plaintiff without disclosing the fact that he had already entered into an agreement for joint development with Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited by agreement dated 15.12.1999, whereby he had agreed to allot 66.5% of the suit property to the said Developer and had retained only the remaining 33.5% of the suit property.
5. In the plaint, it had been further stated that when the plaintiff tried to put up a compound wall and a bore-well, he was informed by Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited about the Agreement for Joint Development dated 15.12.1999. It had been contended that the defendant had sold the property without disclosing the true and correct facts. The plaintiff thereafter made enquiries and came to know that Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited had actually initiated arbitration proceedings against the defendant and an award had been passed on 02.07.2011 for specific performance of the agreement. Thereafter, execution proceedings were also initiated in E.P. No. 45 of 2013 before this Court. The plaintiff stated that 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 he therefore filed a criminal complaint against the defendant on 29.07.2013 with the Commissioner of Police, Egmore for offence of cheating and Crime No.131 of 2014 had been registered by the City Crime Branch and a final report had been filed and taken cognizance as C.C. No. 2080 of 2015, which is now pending before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. The plaintiff to protect his possession as bonafide purchaser filed C.S. No. 191 of 2014 and in Application No.211 of 2014 by an order dated 18.03.2014, status-quo was granted.
6. It had been stated that though the defendant had been served, he had not taken any steps to participate in the judicial proceedings. The plaintiff further contended that he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 15.07.2015 with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,85,441/- and had also paid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as part payment and had agreed to pay the balance on recovery from the defendant. It is under those circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking damages of Rs.1,40,85,441/- together with interest and costs.
7. In the written-statement, the defendant had contended that he and 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 the adjoining plot owner had entered into a Development Agreement with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited and it had been agreed that both Plot Nos. 5 and 6 would be joined together and a building would be constructed. However, the Developer did not show any interest in constructing the building. The owner of Plot No.6 had then independently constructed a building over his plot through another builder.
8. It had been further stated that though arbitration proceedings had been initiated, the awards had been set aside by the Court. The defendant however did not file an Original Petition to set aside the award, since the award against the owner of Plot No.6 had already been set aside. It had been stated that all these facts had been explained to the plaintiff and documents relating to the Development Agreement and other related documents were supplied to the plaintiff. It had been stated that the plaintiff came forward to purchase the property only with the knowledge of all those facts. It had been further stated that the plaintiff had also filed a suit in C.S. No. 191 of 2014, which had been transferred to the City Civil Court and re- numbered as O.S. No.8161 of 2021 and is pending adjudication. It had been further stated that the plaintiff had also lodged a police complaint against 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 the defendant. It had been stated that the plaintiff had purchased the property with knowledge about the existing Agreement with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited. It had been further stated that there has been no suppression of any material fact by the defendant. It had been stated that the defendant is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. It had therefore been stated that the plaint should be dismissed.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified in terms of the sale deed dated 15.07.2013?
2. Whether the plaintiff has purchased the property under the sale deed dated 15.07.2013 knowing fully well about the third party claim over the property?
3. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the plaintiff and the developer binding the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to the suit claim?” 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016
10. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P13 and the defendant examined himself as DW1, but did not mark any documents.
11. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Umapathy, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel for the defendant.
12. Mr.S.Umapathy, during the course of his arguments, took the Court through the facts of the case. He pointed out that Ex.P1 was the copy of the sale deed dated 15.07.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff went to the suit property to put up a compound wall and a bore-well, he was prevented from doing the same by the officials of Nathan's Foundation Private Limited, who claimed that they had a Development Agreement with the defendant. The plaintiff had therefore filed a police complaint on 29.07.2013. It was also stated that consequent to an award granted, Nathan's Foundation Private Limited had also filed E.P. No. 45 of 2013.
13. The learned counsel pointed out that the defendant had 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 suppressed all these facts and sold the property to the plaintiff. He further pointed out that in the Sale-deed, there were specific clauses to indemnify the plaintiff against any loss. The learned counsel further stated that the defendant had unlawfully sold the property to the plaintiff and therefore, insisted that the plaintiff must be suitably compensated for the loss suffered.
14. Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel for the defendant however refuted the said contentions. According to him, the defendant was the owner of Plot No.5 and he along with the owner of the Plot No.6 had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited to construct one common building over the two plots. However, the Builder had not shown any interest in putting up the construction. It had been contended that therefore, the owner of Plot No.6 had put up an independent construction over his plot.
15. The learned counsel pointed out that the Joint Venture Agreement had therefore become redundant and not capable of performance. He also pointed out that most of the arbitration awards obtained by the builder had been set aside by the Court. However, the defendant did not file any 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Original Petition to set aside the award.
16. The learned counsel stated that however the plaintiff had been informed about all the transactions with the builder and there was no suppression of any material fact. The learned counsel contended that the defendant was not liable to pay to the plaintiff any amount much less damages. The learned counsel therefore stated that the suit should be dismissed.
17. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused materials placed on record.
Issue Nos. 1 and 2:-
18. These issues relate to the claim of the plaintiff to be indemnified in terms of the Sale-deed dated 15.07.2013 and whether the plaintiff had purchased the property with knowledge about the claim by Nathan's Foundation Private Limited over the property.
19. Even before examining these issues, it would only be appropriate 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 to point out Sections 124 and 125 of the Contract Act, 1872. The said provisions are as follows:-
“124. “Contract of indemnity” defined.— A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity”.
Illustration A contracts to indemnify B against the consequences of any proceedings which C may take against B in respect of a certain sum of 200 rupees. This is a contract of indemnity.
125. Rights of indemnity-holder when sued.— The promisee in a contract of indemnity, acting within the scope of his authority, is entitled to recover from the promisor— (1) all damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the promise to indemnify applies;
10/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 (2) all costs which he may be compelled to pay in any such suit if, in bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to bring or defend the suit; (3) all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.” In Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the rights and liabilities of buyer and seller had been given and Section 55(1)(a) is as follows:-
“55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.— In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immoveable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:— 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 (1) The seller is bound—
(a) to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property or in the seller’s title thereto of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover;”
20. Section 124 of the Contract Act, 1872, defines a contract of indemnity. In this case, the defendant had promised to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss caused to the plaintiff.
21. Under Section 125 of the Contract Act, 1872, which provides the rights of the indemnity holder, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages which the defendant had promised to indemnify and also any other loss which he had suffered.
22. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a seller of an immovable property is bound to disclose to the purchaser any material defect in the property or in his title.
12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016
23. In this case, the defendant was under obligation to disclose that he had already entered into an Agreement of Sale with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited, which fact had not been disclosed.
24. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property bearing Plot No.5, Subramanian Colony in an approved layout LPDM/DTP No.16 of 1973 measuring 3600 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 10, old Survey No.317/63 formerly Survey No.317/1 part, Block No.188, Velachery for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,44,00,000/- by sale deed dated 15.07.2013 registered as Document No.4149 of 2013 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Velachery. The plaintiff had also stated that he had paid to the defendant development charges of Rs.1,36,00,000/-. However, when the plaintiff wanted to put up a compound wall and a bore-well, he was prevented by the officials of Nathan's Foundation Private Limited, who claimed that they had an agreement dated 15.12.1999 with the defendant to purchase 66.5% of the suit property, and that they had also initiated arbitration proceedings and an award had also been passed on 02.07.2011. The plaintiff was also informed that E.P. No. 45 of 2013 had also been filed before this Court seeking enforcement of the award.
13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016
25. In this connection, Sale-deed dated 15.07.2013 had been marked as Ex.P1 and the copy of the Execution Petition No.45 of 2013 had been marked as Ex.P3. Both these documents very clearly show that the plaintiff had purchased the property, which was the subject matter of the Execution Petition. In the Sale-deed, Ex-P1, the defendant had covenanted as follows:-
“2) That the VENDOR is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and that notwithstanding any act, deed or thing whatsoever by the VENDOR or by any person or persons lawfully and equitably claiming from under or in trust for them or any of them made, done or executed knowingly or willingly suffered to the contrary the VENDOR has good and marketable title and absolute powers to sell, convey and assures that the Scheduled Property hereby sold and expressed to as to be unto and to the use of the PURCHASER free from all encumbrances and claims and that he has not entered into any agreement of sale or any other assurances with respect to the Schedule Property with any third parties.
14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016
3) That the Schedule Property shall at all times be entered upon peacefully and quietly enjoyed by the PURCHASER and rents and profits received there from without any let or hindrance or lawful eviction, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever by the VENDOR or his predecessors-in-title or any person or persons lawfully or equitable claiming by or from or under or in trust for the VENDOR.
6) That the VENDOR indemnifies and keep indemnified the PURCHASER against all claims, actions, proceedings, attachments, demands, costs, losses, damages and expenses whatsoever which the PURCHASER may be put to by reason of any defect in title or property or deficiency in extent of the said properties or by reach of non-performance by the VENDOR of any of the covenants, conditions, assurances and representations contained herein and that this indemnity is in addition to and without prejudice to any other indemnity hereinbefore provided or otherwise unavailable to the PURCHASER under law.
15/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016
10.That the VENDOR declares that he has disclosed all the liabilities, charges, lien attachment in respect of the schedule property and nothing is left undisclosed. In the event of any existing liability affecting the rights of the VENDOR in respect of the schedule property, not disclosed at the time of execution of Sale Deed, surfaces in future, the same shall be discharged by the VENDOR at his own costs and expenses. In default the PURCHASER is entitled to discharge the said liability or liabilities and get indemnified /reimbursed of the costs from the VENDOR.”
26. The defendant had very categorically agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss suffered owing to defect in title and had further covenanted that he would indemnify the plaintiff for any loss and for expenses incurred owing to defect in title, which had not been disclosed at the time of execution of the Sale-deed. The plaintiff was given the entitlement to discharge the liability and get indemnified/ reimbursed of the cost at the Vendor/ defendant.
27. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into a 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Memorandum of Understanding on 15.07.2015 with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited and had agreed to pay Rs.1,15,85,441/- as one time settlement. The plaintiff had actually paid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by two Pay Orders bearing Nos.422382 and 179149 both dated 14.07.2015 drawn on Deutsche Bank, Chennai and Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Madipakkam branch for Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- respectively. The Developer, M/s.Nathan's Foundation Private Limited had agreed to forgo all their rights in the Agreement dated 15.12.1999 and had also undertaken to terminate E.P. No.45 of 2013 on the file of this Court. The balance amount had been agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the Developer on realization from the defendant.
28. It had been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Memorandum of Understanding had been produced before this Court as Ex.P4 and letters issued by Deutsche Bank, Chennai and the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Madipakkam branch as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively. Thus, it is clear that the defendant had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any damages and the plaintiff had incurred damages and loss owing to the payment he made to Nathan's Foundation Private Limited under the 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, Ex.P4 dated 15.07.2015.
29. In the written-statement, these facts had not been denied. The defendant only claimed that the matter could be settled, but however it is to be noted that the defendant had not filed any application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award, Ex.P4 dated 02.07.2011. The award had become final. The plaintiff had suffered at the hands of the defendant by purchasing a property, which had already been agreed by the defendant to be sold to Nathan's Foundation Private Limited and over which, an award had been passed on 02.07.2011 and an Execution Petition in E.P. No. 45 of 2013 /Ex.P5 was pending. The bonafide of the plaintiff is further exhibited by filing of C.S. No.191 of 2014. A copy of the plaint had been marked as Ex.P7. The suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession.
30. The defendant in his cross-examination had given very evasive answers to specific questions put to him. It is clear that he had not come to 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Court with intention to disclose the correct and true facts. He had suppressed material facts before the plaintiff and he was also not willing to disclose material facts before this Court.
“Q65: I put it to you that there is no possibility for enjoying the property, the plaintiff negotiated settlement proceedings with Nathan Foundation and he has entered an agreement with MOU (Ex.P4).
A: I deny. Witness adds: I do not know.
Q66: Do you know in order to negotiate settlement proceedings with Nathan Foundation and agreement the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1,15,85,441/- as a one time settlement?
A: I do not know.
Q67: (Ex.P4 is shown to the witness). I put it to you that under that MOU (Ex.P4) plaintiff has paid Rs.60,00,000/- to the Nathan Foundation.
A: I do not know.
Q68: I put it to you that plaintiff has paid Rs.60,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts to Nathan Foundation.
A: I do not know.
19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Q69: I put it to you that because of that Nathan Foundation has forgo all his rights in the agreement dated 15.12.1999 and agreed to terminate the E.P.No.45/2013.
A: I do not know.
Q70: I put it to you that as per the MOU the plaintiff has to pay the balance of Rs.55,85,441/- to Nathan Foundation after realization from the defendant.
A: I do not know.
Q71: I put it to you that you are bound to pay the amount mentioned in MOU (Ex.P4) for the plaintiff to reimburse to the Nathan Foundation.
A: I do not know about the agreement. So, I am not responsible.
Q72: I put it to you that since you suppress material documents before the sale, you are bound to pay Rs.25,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff.
A: I have not suppressed any fact.
Q73: I put it to you that you violated the clauses 5,6 and 10 in the Sale-deed Ex.P1 and put the plaintiff into loss. A: I deny. Witness adds: I have not made any loss.” 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 It is thus evident that the defendant had an intention to commit fraud and to suppress material facts which can also be categorized as a fraudulent act.
31. In this connection, reference could be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs and others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“6. ....... A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. ....... A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”
32. The defendant is also an accused in FIR in Crime No.131 of 2014 registered by the City Crime Branch, and the following questions were put to the defendant:-
21/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 “Q56: Whether FIR in Crime No.131/2014 lodged against you in City Crime Branch?
A: Yes.
Q57: Is it correct that you have been arrested in Crime No.131/2014 lodged against you in City Crime Branch? A: Yes.
Q58: For how many days you were remanded? A: I was in prison for three weeks.
Q59: Is it correct that you come out from the prison through bail?
A: Yes.
Q60: In the above said crime number charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 2080/2015 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet?
A: Yes.
Q61: Is it correct that C.C. No. 2080/2015 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet is still pending? A: Yes.
Q62: Is it correct that the criminal complaint was arised out 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 of cheating in sale transaction?
A: Yes.”
33. I hold that the plaintiff had made out a case of suppression of material facts by the defendant. In view of the reasons stated above, and more particularly, because of the covenants in Ex.P1, Sale-deed, issue No. 1 is answered that the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified in terms of the Sale-deed dated 15.07.2013 and issue No.2 is answered that the plaintiff had purchased the property without knowledge about the third-party claim over the property. Both the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.3:-
34. In the plaint, it had been very specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, Ex.P4 on 15.07.2015 to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,85,441/- and an advance of Rs.60,00,000/- had been paid by two Pay Orders bearing Nos.422382 and 179149 both dated 14.07.2015 and drawn on Deutsche Bank, Chennai and Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Madipakkam branch for Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- respectively. These facts have been stated in Ex.P4. The plaintiff had suffered loss owing to the non-disclosure of the agreement, 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 which the defendant had with Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited. It had also been stated in Ex.P4 that consequent to arbitration award, Ex.P8, E.P. No. 45 of 2013 had also been filed in Ex.P3 and Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited had agreed to withdraw the said Execution Petition, but the plaintiff is still due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.55,85,441 /- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the Memorandum of Understanding to Nathan’s Foundation Private Limited.
35. It is thus evident that the plaintiff had suffered loss and had actually entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. The defendant had proclaimed ignorance of the same, but the Memorandum of Understanding was a direct result of the suppression of material facts by the defendant.
36. I hold that the plaintiff had proved the fact that he had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Nathan's Foundation Private Limited which is binding on the defendant since, it had been entered into only because the defendant had not disclosed the true and correct facts relating to previous charge /agreement over the property. In view of the above reasons, the issue No. 3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff that the 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is binding on the defendant. Issue No.4:-
37. In view of the conclusions arrived at with respect to issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3,I hold that the plaintiff had suffered loss as claimed by him. He had paid a sum of Rs.1,44,00,000/- as consideration for purchase of the property. He had also paid a sum of Rs.1,36,00,000/- towards development charges. After paying such a huge amount for purchase of the property, he had to pay another sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as part payment to Nathan's Foundation Private Limited. The sale consideration and the payments made to Nathan's Foundation Private Limited are reflected in Ex.P1/ Sale-deed and Ex.P4/Memorandum of Understanding respectively. The plaintiff had also given a complaint before the Police in Ex.P2, which had been taken cognizance and the trial is in progress. Thus, the plaintiff had established the loss suffered by him owning to the deliberate act of suppression of facts by the defendant. Though the plaintiff had incurred further amounts towards loss, he had claimed a sum of Rs.1,40,85,441/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of payment. I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed in the plaint towards 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 damages suffered by him and that the defendant in view of the covenants in the Sale-deed/Ex.P1 has to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss suffered. Therefore, issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.5:-
38. In view of the conclusion reached with respect to issue Nos.1 to 4, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim and that the suit has to be decreed with costs.
39. In the result, the suit is decreed by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,85,441/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of payment and also for costs of the suit.
01.08.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
NCS : Yes /No
Maya
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm )
C.S. No. 672 of 2016
List of Witness on side of plaintiff:
P.W.1 – Mr.G.Jeyakrishna
List of Exhibits on side of plaintiff:
S.No Exhibit Date Description
No.
1 Ex.P1 15.07.2013 The certified copy of the sale deed.
2 Ex.P2 29.07.2013 The office copy of the police complaint.
3 Ex.P3 The certified copy of the Execution Petition
No.45/2013.
4 Ex.P4 15.07.2015 The original memorandum of understanding
between the plaintiff and the builder.
5 Ex.P5 14.07.2016 The office copy of the legal notice sent by the
plaintiff to the defendant.
6 Ex.P6 The original postal acknowledgment card.
7 Ex.P7 The photocopy of the plaint in C.S. No.
191/2014.
8 Ex.P8 02.07.2011 The photocopy of the award between the
Nathan's Foundation and the defendant.
9 Ex.P9 08.01.2024 The original letter from Deutsche Bank.
10. Ex.P10 10.01.2024 The original letter from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank.
11. Ex.P11 19.06.2013 The original Authentication Letter with receipt.
12. Ex.P12 07.07.2013 The original Authentication Letter with receipt.
13. Ex.P13 13.07.2013 The original Authentication Letter with receipt.
List of Witness on side of defendant:
D.W.1 – Mr.A.Ram Mohan List of Exhibits on side of defendant:
Nil 01.08.2025 27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm ) C.S. No. 672 of 2016 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Maya C.S. No. 672 of 2016 Dated : 01.08.2025 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 06:29:18 pm )