Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arkavathi layout in Sri. Lagadapati Malyadri vs Aged About 39 Years on 25 March, 2021Matching Fragments
2. The Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are:
The present Respondent filed a Complaint U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. against the present Appellant, alleging that, they and the Appellants have entered into an Agreement of Sale on 10.12.2015 inrespect of the property bearing No.30, Katha No.1067, situate at Thanisandra Village, now known as Aswathnagar, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka, now coming within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Authorities, for total sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/. They have paid an amount of Rs.45,00,000/ on different dates, as advance sale consideration and have promised to pay remaining sale consideration, at the time of registration of the said document. They have approached REPCO Bank for availing the loan on the property and to have construction over the said property. The said Bank has refused to release the loan, by saying that the property was acquired by BDA, for formation of Arkavathy layout, by issuing final notification. Even Possession of the said land is also taken by the BDA, thereby the present Appellants have no right, title and interest over the scheduled property under the sale. The present Appellants have concealed all the material facts with dishonest intention to cheat and defraud them. The Appellants have issued a legal notice calling upon them to pay the balance sale consideration amount, else the Agreement of Sale stands terminated due to nonperformance of their part of contract. They have issued reply to the said notice and finally due to the intervention of the wellwishers, mutually decided to settle the issue amicably, by entering into a Settlement Deed on 15.09.2016, wherein the Appellants have undertaken to repay the entire advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/ to the Respondents/Complainants. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/ is paid by way of cash by the Appellants to the Respondents and remaining amount of Rs.30,00,000/ is paid by way of six Cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each, out of the said six Cheques five Cheques were given with the Settlement Deed and the last Cheque is to be given by mentioning the date as 10.12.2016. Out of the said Cheques, the 3rd Cheque bearing No.247608, for Rs.5,00,000/ is the subject matter of this Complaint. On receipt of the said Cheque, the same was presented for its encashment, but the same has returned unencashed with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 04.01.2017. The same was informed by the Respondents to the Appellants, by issuing the notice dtd.17.01.2017 by RPAD. The said notice is duly received on 27.01.2017. The Appellants have failed to comply the said notice.
13. On careful perusal of the evidence led by the Complainant and the crossexamination of PW.1, it is the case of the Accused persons that, the Complainants had undertaken to purchase their property for Rs.92,40,000/ and had entered into an Agreement, by paying advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/. And further agreed to pay the remainder balance. As per the terms of the said Agreement, transaction was to be accomplished within three moths. After completion of the said period, they have issued legal notice to the Complainants demanding to pay the balance sale consideration and inform them that, agreement of sale stands terminated due to nonpayment of agreed sum. Thereafter, the Complainants issued reply notice contending that, the title of the said property is not clear, as the BDA has acquired the said property for formation of Arkavathy Layout, by notifying the said area. With the intervention of the wellwishers, the said dispute was mutually settled, by entering into a Settlement Deed, wherein they had agreed to repay the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/. Subsequently, they came to know that, the subsequent purchasers by names Dharmendra and Ramakrishna were the persons who were employed by them to purchase the said property, for lesser consideration amount than which they had agreed, under the Agreement of Sale. The Complainants have hatchedup such a plan to make wrongful gains and to defraud them.