Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. The agreement in uncertain terms giving all powers to the first petitioner. Further, the 2nd respondent agreed to pay the developer 5% of the gross sale proceeds, as commission, for the service provided by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.28084 & 28085 of 2007 the developer, for developing and marketing the said land. Further, the developer(A1) to remit the 2nd respondent the sale proceeds of the said property. While giving commission of 5%, the initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- would be deducted. Further, R2 would register the said property in favour of the petitioner. L.W.3 / Kiran executed a General Power of Attorney, on 06.02.1996, which cannot be disputed. This General Power of Attorney is a registered document, as Document No.784 of 1996. The conditions in the said document is that A1 / power of attorney to maintain proper accounts of the property. With the developer agreement power of attorney / A1 dealing with the property appearing before the concern authorities viz., Special Officer, Competent Authorities, Urban Land Ceiling at Hyderabad, executed requisite Memorandum and also the mortgage deed created in lieu of laying the road, water supply, electrical line, formation of drains, earmarking plots for public community to carry-out under APM Act. This document executed by L.W.3 / Kiran. He also executed indemnity bonds along with affidavit to the authorities. This is during the year 1996.

36. During this period, there have been several payments made by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Except for initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, which has been paid at the time of executing of developer agreement, there is no other payment made to the first petitioner to do liasoning work alone. There is no explanation or reason given why A1 made payments to R2 as well as the competent authorities if he acted only for liaisoning alone. It is seen that the first petitioner apart from getting the property relieved from the Urban Land Ceiling, he has to develop the property, make it into plots, sell the same and or which he can deduct 5% as commission. For facilitating the same, the developer agreement and general power of attorney agreement executed. Based on this general power of attorney, the authorities acted upon, received necessary charges and payments paid by the first petitioner.

39. L.W.2 had filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.575 of 2006 in O.S.No.388 of 2006 denying the executing of general power of attorney and joint development agreement. The competent civil court considering the objections of the defacto complainant by its Judgment dated 16.06.2008 found that the developer agreement and the general power of attorney found as registered document and also the payments made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent as well as the Government towards regularization of land and with regard to the sale deed executed one of the plot owners Vijayalakshmi on 08.02.2001 answered in favour of the petitioner and also confirmed the sale deed executed by the first petitioner and two others.

40. It is seen that the first petitioner executed the sale deed only for 8 plot of the total 28 plots and for this 8 plots. objections made by the 2nd respondent. Thus, the primary complaint that power of attorney and developer agreement are forged cannot sustain for the above reasons. It is seen that the said Kiran / L.W.3 not stated anything with regard to power of attorney and developer agreement. This documents for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.28084 & 28085 of 2007 reasons best known not sent for the Forensic examination. Further, the 2nd respondent is silent with regard to payment made by the first petitioner running to several thousands. If at all the 2nd respondent has got any dispute with regard to reconciliation of accounts and receipt of payment or dues, if any, from the fist petitioners, which is purely in civil nature. Added to it, except fpr the registered office and passing of the Resolution, authorizing L.W.3 / Kiran all other transaction taken place in Hyderabad. In view of the same, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings is abuse of process of law.