Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/60/2012

S. Meenakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. TNU Realties and Constructions (P) Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, N. Srinivasan & 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

T.M. Hariharan,

03 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                        PRESIDENT

               TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                      MEMBER  

 

C.C.No.60/2012

 THE 03^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

 

                                                                           Complaint filed on: 19.03.2012       

                                                                           Orders Pronounced on: 03.11.2021

 

S. Meenakshi,

W/o. R. Seetharaman,

No.3/10, First Floor, Mahalakshmi Flats,

No.3, Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.                                                                                              Complainant                                                                           

                 Vs

1.   M/s. TNU Realties and Constructions (P) Ltd.,

      Having its Regd Office at No.24 Sivaji Street,

      T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

      Represented by Managing Director, N. Srinivasan.  

     

2.   N.  Srinivasan, S/o. Late. T.N.U. Nagarajan,

      24, Sivaji Street, T. Nagar,

      Chennai – 600 017. 

 

3.   M/s. Maruthi Ice Cream,

      (A registered partnership firm)

      Having its office at No.7,. Abdul Razack Street,

      Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

      Represented by Managing Director,  S.P. Lakshmanan.

 

4.   S.P. Lakshmanan

      S/o. Subramaniam Chettiar,

      Old No.14, New No.24,

      3^rd Main Road, Seethamma Colony,

      Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.                                                                                     Opposite Parties 

 

Counsel for the Complainant              :   M/s. T.M. Hariharan, Advocate.   

Counsel for the Opposite Parties 3 & 4:   M/s. A.S. Kailasam,  Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2:   Set Ex-parte.                                      

             This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 03.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the material records and, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court).     

                  This  complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17,  r/w section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 for a direction to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.61,59,667/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization and Rs.13,32,000/- as compensation and punitive damages, Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant and another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/-towards costs of the proceedings.   

1.            The facts which necessitated the complainant to make a claim is as follows;-  The complainant, being a retired government servant is living with his wife at Flat No.3/10,  First Floor, Mahalakshmi Flats, No.3, Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015 for several years. The complainant intended to invest his savings and retirement benefits in a residential apartment situated nearby his residence.  While so, the opposite parties advertised for construction and sale of residential apartments in site measuring 13611 Sqft in Old Door No.6/1, 6/2 and 8, New Door No.19, 21 and 7 Abdul Razck Street, Saidapet, Chennai which is situated very near to the complainant’s residential place. The 1^st opposite party is a Vendor/Promoter and the 2^nd opposite parry is the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties informed the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party is the absolute owner of a site measuring 6411 sq.ft and the 3^rd opposite party is the absolute owner of the site measuring 7200 sq.ft.  The 3^rd opposite party had duly appointed the 1^st opposite party as its power agent for conveying undivided interest in the land in favour of prospective purchasers and for promoting the residential apartments. Relying on the assurance and representation given by the opposite parties, the complainant made payments to the opposite parties.  As stated above, the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party are the owners of the site.  The 3^rd opposite party represented by its Managing Director, the 4^th opposite party constituted the first opposite party as power agent.  The 1^st opposite party had entered into a sale-cum-construction agreement with the complainant on 06.10.2008.  The 1^st opposite party is the Vendor/Promoter and the complainant is the purchaser. The following assurance/ commitments/ acknowledgements have been made by the opposite parties in the said Sale-cum-Construction Agreement dated 06.10.2008. 

          a)  that the 2^nd opposite party being the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party,  is the absolute owner of the site measuring 6411 sq.ft bearing Old Door No.6/1 and 6/2, New Door No.19 and 21 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet  Chennai comprised in R.S.No.31 (part) and 31A (part) and T.S.No.7/1 (Schedule A to the Sale-Cum-Construction Agreement). 

          b)  that the 2^nd opposite party is the absolute owner of the aforesaid site measuring 6411 sqft by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2006. Doc.No.1230 /2006 – Jt. Sub-Registrar-II, Saidapet, Chennai.  

          c)   that the 3^rd opposite party is the absolute owner of the site measuring 7200 sqft bearing old No.8 and New No.7 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet Chennai comprised in R.S.No.30 (part) and 31A(part) and T.S.No.7,(Schedule B to the Sale-cum-Construction Agreement).

          d)   that the 3^rd opposite party is constituted the absolute owner of the aforesaid site measuring 7200 sq.ft by virtue of Registered Release Deed dated 31.01.1979 – Doc No.2404/1979 – District Registrar, Madras South, Saidapet, Chennai. 

          e)  that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties mutually decided to consolidate their holdings to put up constructions and have entered into a Deed of Re-Constitution dated 01.09.2008.  The re-constituted property measures 13,611 sq.ft (Schedule C to the State-cum-Construction Agreement).

          f)    Maruthi Ice Cream, the 3^rd opposite party, has appointed the first Opposite Party as its power agent under General Power of Attorney dated 04.08.2008, registered as Doc.No.1494/2008, Book IV, Jt. Sub-Registrar, -II, Saidapet, authorizing the 1^st opposite party to promote and sell the residential apartments to be built on the re-constituted property. 

          g)  The 1^st opposite party as a Vendor/Promoter agreed to sell 463 sq.ft undivided share in the re-constituted property and more fully described in Schedule  “D”  to the sale-cum-Construction Agreement.

          h)   The 1^st opposite party as the Vendor/Promoter agreed to construct a residential flat No.A-2, First Floor having a super plinth area of 928 sq.ft including common area with covered car parking as described in Schedule “E” to the Sale-cum-Construction Agreement.

          i)      The 1^st opposite party/promoter agreed to complete the construction within 10 months from the date of agreement with a further condition that the time for completion and delivery can be extended by a further period of one month due to unavoidable circumstances.  

          j)     The total sale consideration for the undivided share in the site and for the 928 sq.ft. Residential Apartment is Rs.44,40,000/-.

          k)    The opposite parties acknowledged the receipt of Rs.20 lakhs paid by the complainant under Rs.5,00,000/-on 19.02.2008,  Rs.15,00,000/- on 08.11.2007 by cheque No.979156 on IOB Saidapet. 

          l)     The Purchaser/Complainant is to pay the remaining sum as the construction progresses in installments on intimation from the Vendor/Promoter.  

2.    Thus, the complainant had paid a substantial part of total Sale Consideration amounting to Rs.20 lakhs to the opposite parties even prior to the Sale-cum-Construction Agreement, dated 06.10.2008. Therefore, the complainant has been relentlessly pursuing the matter with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The opposite parties commenced construction and raised columns. At the request of the opposite parties he has paid the following further sums to the opposite parties towards the cost of the residential apartment.  

_______________________________________________________________________

                                     Rs.       

          21.03.2009     7,00,000/-                        Cheque

          30.03.2009     3,00,000/-                         Cash

          01.06.2009     2,00,000/-                         Cash  

                              14,00,000/-

____________________________________________________________________________

Thus, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.44,40,000/- and therefore, he has been repeatedly contacting the first and second opposite parties who have been assuring the complainant that the sale deed for the undivided interest in the land being 463 sq.ft will be executed shortly and that the construction will be completed at a rapid pace and possession would be delivered soon. Even after expiry of 6 months, the opposite parties failed to convey the undivided share of the land to the complainant and failed to complete the constructions.  The complainant and other such purchasers pressed the first and second opposite parties for immediate action.  During March 2010,  the 2^nd opposite party, the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party and power holder of the third opposite party,  made an endorsement in the sale-cum-construction agreement, dated 06.10.2008 to the following effects;-

1. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the work could not be completed in the stipulated period.    
2. It is agreed that the entire work will be completed and possession of the flat be handed over in November 2010 complete in all respects.
3. The Registration for undivided share of the land will also be executed before handing over the flat.   
4. It is assured that there will not be any deviation from the aforesaid commitments under any circumstances.  

In view of the above assurance made, the complainant was fervently hoping that the opposite parries will fulfill their obligation within November 2010 as undertaken. The complainant pressed for registration of undivided share in the land in his name. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties assured that they would do the needful.  On the instructions of the first and 2^nd opposite parties, their counsel sent an email to the complainant attaching the draft of the sale deed. The email was sent from the email address of Divya, the daughter of the complainant name.  However, the opposite parties again defaulted and did not do anything thereafter. The complainant repeatedly contacted the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties but on every occasion the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties assured the complainant that the sale deed in respect of undivided share would  be registered in his favour very soon and the construction would be completed and delivered the possession soon.    

3.        While so, during the first week of October 2011, the complainant learned that the Second opposite party who is the owner of the site measuring 6411 sq.ft detailed in Schedule A to the Sale-cum-Construction Agreement had created an equitable mortgage over the said property in favour of the Indian Bank, T. Nagar Branch and that the said Bank exercising powers under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act has taken steps to bring the said extent of 6411 sqft with unfinished structures and columns for sale for realization of a sum of Rs.2,13,96,358.91. The complainant was shocked to learn the aforesaid fact from the paper publication that was issued in the Trinity Mirror, dated 23.05.2011.                  The complainant on 12.10.2011 addressed the 1^st opposite party, represented by its Managing Director, the Second opposite party and the 4^th opposite party, the Managing Director of the 3^rd opposite party pointing out that the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.34 lakhs out of total consideration of Rs.44,40,000/- and has been approaching the opposite parties ever since the date of agreement and that the complainant is shocked to know that Indian bank, T. Nagar Branch is attempting to bring the property for sale by public auction.  The complainant pointed out that he has been lured to part with the heavy amount and that he apprehended that the opposite parties had not intended to honour their commitments. The complainant demanded the constructions be completed forthwith and the flat be delivered to him.  Further, the opposite parties were also informed that the complainant would initiate necessary legal action both civil and criminal, if the opposite parties failed to honour their commitments. Even after receipt of notice dated 12.10.2011 of the complainant, there was no reply from the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant issued a reminder dated 22.10.2011 to the opposite parties.   Later, the 1^st opposite party issued a reply through their counsel, dated 29.10.2011 alleging that i) the 1^st opposite party is not owner of  6411 sqft in Door No.6/1, 6/2 (New Door No.19 & 21) Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai. (ii) The 4^th opposite party is not the owner of the extent of 7200 sqft being Old Door No.5, New Door No.7, Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai. (iii) The complainant is aware that the premises bearing Old Door No.8 and New Door No.7, Abdul Razack Road, Saidapet, Chennai belongs to the third opposite party, which has several shareholders who requested the first opposite party to promote their lands as apartments along with the adjoining lands of the first opposite party.(iv)  The 4^th opposite party, a close relative of the shareholders of the third opposite party executed a general power of attorney in favour of the first opposite party as a temporary arrangement. (v)  The complainant insisted the purchase of a residential flat and in the circumstances the sale-cum-construction agreement, dated 06.10.2008 came to be entered into. (vi) The complainant agreed to receive back the money paid by him without any interest if the first oppose party was not able to get proper legal authority from the shareholders of the 3^rd opposite party. (vii) During February 2010, the shareholders of the 3^rd opposite party informed the First opposite party that they could not execute a power of attorney and the first opposite party immediately informed the facts to the complainant and requested the complainant to take back the money paid by him.  (viii) The demand of the complainant to complete the flat and hand over the possession and to execute a sale deed by the undivided share in the land was rejected and the firs opposite party expressed readiness to return the amount paid by the complainant within 6 months. Thus by their reply dated 29.10.2011 the opposite parties refused to perform their obligations under the sale-cum-construction agreement dated 06.10.2008 and committed breach of constrict. In the above circumstances, complainant issued a rejoinder dated 11.11.2011 to the counsel for the First Opposite Party through his counsel highlighting the entire facts and the same was duly received by the counsel for the 1^st opposite party.  Even after lapse of 4 months, the opposite parties have not cared to respond or refund the money lawfully payable to the complainant.  Further, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties lured the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.34 lakhs promising to construct a residential apartment. The opposite parties have suppressed the facts that a portion of the site had been mortgaged to the Indian Bank and is being brought to sale. After issuing notice by the complainant demanding immediate performances, the opposite parties alleged that the Registered power of attorney dated 04.08.2008 produced to the complainant is a temporary arrangement and the partners of the 3^rd opposite party have not authorized the first and second opposite parties to deal with their site.  All these are acts of fraud, deception and cheating and hence the opposite parties are liable to be prosecuted in Civil and Criminal cases. Hence, the opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with this complaint claiming reliefs as stated supra. 

4.     The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed a joint written version denying the allegations of the complainant by contending inter alia that the 1^st opposite party had never represented or claimed that they are absolute owner of the property bearing New No.19, Old Door No.6/1 and 2 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet comprised in Re-survey No.31,314 measuring a total extent of 6411 sqft and the same was not purchased in favour of the 1^st opposite party.  Likewise, the 4^th opposite party is also not the owner of the properly situated in Old Door No.8 and New Door No.7 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai. While being so, the averment that the opposite parties jointly agreed to promote and sell some extent of areas as residential apartments to the complainant is highly controversial and absurd. The complainant being a local resident is well aware that the property situated in Old No.8 and New Door No.7, Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai belonged to the 3^rd opposite party, M/s. Maruthi Ice Company which has several shareholders. The said shareholders/owners of the property had approached and requested the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to promote their land as residential apartments along with the land that belongs to the 2^nd opposite party which is adjacent to their land for which the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties agreed on condition of proper execution of necessary legal documents in their favour from the shareholders of M/s. Maruthi Ice Company to deal with the property that belonged to the 3^rd opposite party.  At that time, some of the co-owners of the 3^rd opposite party were out of India and they were not able to physically present to execute the said legal documents including a General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they formally authorized the 4^th opposite party who is none other than a close relative of the shareholders of the 3^rd opposite party to negotiate with 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  As a temporary arrangement, the 4^th opposite party executed a general power of attorney in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for which the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties initially did not agree since the 4^th opposite party had no right or title to deal with the said property but the co-owners of the 3^rd opposite party jointly assured and persuaded the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that once they returned to India they would execute all the necessary documents in favour of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Due to the said reasons, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties did not allow the interested buyers to book flats. While being so, the complainant had approached these opposite parties to purchase a residential flat. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties categorically informed the complainant that at present they have no power to deal with the property of the 3^rd opposite party and they are taking efforts to get proper legal documents from the shareholders of the 3^rd opposite party.  Hence, these opposite parries refused to accept the complainant/s offer and informed him that after completion of the legal formalities they would call the complainant, if the complainant is willing to purchase the property. But the complainant was so obstinate to purchase the residential flat because the property is situated very closed to Mount Road which is high valued area.  So, the complainant spontaneously persuaded and convinced by saying that he is interested in the said property and requested the opposite parties to accept the offer.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 agreed to accept the offer and provided all Xerox copies pertaining to the above said two properties enabling the complainant to find out the existing encumbrance in the properties. The complainant verified thoroughly with his legal adviser and he entered a sale agreement with the opposite parties.  Hence, it is not correct to state that the opposite parties 1 & 2 defrauded the complainant.

6.      The opposite parties 1 & 2 strongly believed that the share holders of 3^rd opposite party would extend their support to the opposite parties 1 & 2 both legally and mentally enabling the opposite parties 1 & 2 to deal with the property in a proper manner.  Besides the opposite parties 1 & 2, believing the words of the share holders of the 3^rd opposite party spent a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from their hand towards construction cost to carry out the construction works at the properties that belongs to the 3^rd opposite party.  But, in the month of February 2010 the share holders of the 3^rd opposite party all of sudden informed the opposite parties 1 & 2 that due to immense misunderstanding among them they could not execute power of attorney and joint venture agreement in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and they decided to immediately withdraw the entire proposal of promoting their land along with the opposite  parties 1 & 2 which resulted in forcing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to stop further construction works in the said properties. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties immediately called on the complainant and personally informed him about the unexpected and unanticipated “U” turn taken by the 3^rd opposite party’s share holders and requested the complainant to receive the advance amount paid by him as on date.  The complainant having understood the tricky position of the opposite parties 1 & 2 agreed to receive the amount without any protest. The complainant being very adjacent to the properties in which the construction works were carried out knew that no construction work was carried out thereafter and the entire project was abandoned/stalled. The complainant after lapse of 20 months surprisingly shockingly served a letter, dated 22.10.2011 concealing the real facts by demanding a flat from the opposite parties 1 & 2 which was nothing but afterthought and motivated.   The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not rendered any deficiency of service to the complainant at any point of time. The complainant, if at all wants to recover whatsoever amount paid based on the agreement, he should file suit for recovery by paying necessary court fee before the Civil Court.  Thus, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.       The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties filed a joint written version denying the allegations by contending inter alia that the 3^rd opposite party owns a piece of land measuring 7200 sq.ft and entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the 1^st opposite party dated 24.12.2007 by which Flats were agreed to be constructed by the 1^st opposite party at cost of Rs.1,450/- per sqft. The 1^st opposite party was the owner of the adjacent land measuring around 6411 sq.ft combined the same, got the plan sanctioned and started construction.  The Joint Venture Agreement dated 24.12.2007 with specific reference to the schedule makes it clear that the construction was only on 7200 sqft of land belonging to the 3^rd opposite party due to which there is no nexus between the complainant and the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. The first opposite party abandoned the project and left the opposite parties in lurch and in fact the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have also paid a sum of Rs.50.0 lakhs to the 2^nd opposite party by cheque on 20.08.2010. A perusal of the Sale-cum-Construction Agreement, dated 06.10.2008 would reveal that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have entered into the same in their individual capacity and not on behalf of these opposite parties 3 & 4.  Due to which the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have no privity of contract with the complainant.  No money was paid by the complainant with the opposite parties 3 & 4 and therefore there is no question of refund of the same or any deficiency in service does not arise. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties 3 & 4 sought for dismissal of the complaint.                                     

7.        In order to prove their case, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their proof affidavit.  On the side of the complainant, Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked and on the side the opposite parties 3 & 4 Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. No document was marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   

8.        When the matter was taken up for hearing, the opposite parties 1 & 2 remained absent.  Heard the submissions of the complainant and the opposite parties 3 & 4 and perused the materials available on record.  The first opposite party is a private limited company. The 2^nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party limited company. The 2^nd opposite party is the owner of the residential apartments in the site measuring 13611 sqft in Old Door No.6/1, 6/2, and 8, New Door Nos.19, 21 and 7 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet ,Chennai comprised in R.S.No.31 (part) and 31A (part) and T.S.No.7/1 (Schedule A to the sale cum Construction Agreement).  The 3^rd opposite party is the absolute owner of the site measuring 7200 sqff bearing Old Door No.8 and new Door No.7 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai. The above two sites are adjacent properties. The 3^rd opposite party through its Managing Director, 4^th opposite party has given power to the 1^st opposite party to convey undivided interest in the land in favour of prospective purchaser and for promoting residential apartments and further the 3^rd opposite party agreed to develop jointly by an agreement. Hence, the 1^st opposite party agreed to sell 463 sqft undivided share in the re-constituted property and also agreed to construct a residential flat No.A2 First Floor having a plinth area of 928 sqft including common area with covered car parking for a total sale consideration of Rs.44,40,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant entered into an agreement dated 06.10.2008 with the 1^st opposite party and purchased undivided share of land measuring to the extent of 463 sqft.  But, though several years have lapsed till date the project has not been commenced and hence the complainant has come forward with this complaint for refund of Rs.61,59,667/- paid by him with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.  All these facts are not denied by none of the opposite parties. It is the submissions of the opposite parties 3 & 4 that an agreement was entered only in between complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Hence, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties 3 & 4 and thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against them. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not appeared at the time of argument before this Commission.  Moreover, they have not denied the case of the complainant. Though the opposite parties 3 & 4 had stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties 3 & 4, the sale-cum-construction agreement was signed by the 1^st opposite party as the power agent of the 3^rd opposite party. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the opposite parties 3 & 4.  Further, in the relief column, the complainant has claimed refund of Rs.61,59,667/-from the opposite parties which is made up of principle amount of Rs.34,00,000/- plus interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date on which the amounts were paid on different spells.    But, we are not inclined to give a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.61,59,667/-especially in the absence of any break-up details of the interest amount claimed in the complaint. Therefore, we are of the considered view that through the documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A11, the complainant has proved her case and therefore she is entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.34,00,000/- paid by her from   the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 24% per annum  along with compensation and the complaint is allowed accordingly.          

5.        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.34,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and the mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Time for compliance;-  Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.                   

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                                R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT. 

 

               LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex   A1   06.10.2008   Sale cum Construction Agreement.  

Ex   A2   31.03.2010   Copy of email received from Counsel for the 1^st opposite party

                                along with draft sale deed.

Ex   A3   23.05.2011   Copy of paper publication in Trinity Mirror

Ex   A4   12.10.2011   Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties

Ex   A5   22.10.2011   Reminder letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties

Ex   A6   29.10.2011   Reply of the 1^st opposite party through counsel

Ex   A7   10.11.2011   Rejoinder issued by the complainant through counsel

Ex   A8                      Acknowledgement received from the 1^st opposite party’s counsel

Ex   A9   16.06.2006   Sale deed in favour of the 2^nd opposite party

Ex A10   04.08.2008   General Power of Attorney executed by the 4^th opposite party in

                                favour of the 2^nd opposite party. 

Ex A11   31.01.1979   Deed of Release in favour of the third opposite party     

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 3 & 4

 

Ex   B1   24.12.2007  Joint Venture Agreement

Ex   B2   12.03.2002  Partnership Deed   

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2

 

NIL

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                             R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Nov/2021