Madras High Court
M/S.E.H.Turel & Company vs G.D.Ranka on 6 December, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
These cases are decided by this Court on 06.12.2024, and it is listed today
under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff in C.S.No.304 of 2011.
2.The learned counsel submitted that the cause title of the judgment does
not indicate who has appeared and argued for the plaintiff in C.S.No.304 of
2011 and that may have to be inserted. He added that in the relief portion at
page No.54 of the judgment, the Court has not indicated the period within
which the defendants are required to execute the sale deed.
3.The learned counsel for the defendants said that even the name of the
counsel for the defendants also not mentioned in the cause title in
C.S.No.304 of 2011.
1/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
4.The Registry is now required to:
i. mention the names of the counsels in the cause title of the judgment
in C.S.No.304 of 2011; and
ii. In the result portion at Page No.54, the 2nd line after the words "in
favour of the plaintiff", the following words "within a period of
three (3) months" is directed to be inserted.
5.The relief portion will now read as below:
Result:
A. C.S.No.304 of 2011
1. The suit is decreed with costs, and the defendants are directed to
execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the
plaintiff within a period of three (3) months from today and to hand
over the original title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff.
03.01.2025
kas
2/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
03.01.2025
3/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 24.10.2024
Pronounced on : 06.12.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
C.S.No.304 of 2011
M/s.E.H.Turel & Company
SA-1, Sidco Industrial Estate
I Street, MMDA Colony
Arumbakkam
Chennai – 600 106. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.G.D.Ranka
2.Mangala Ranka ... Defendants
Prayer in C.S.No.304 of 2011 : Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of
CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, praying for a
judgment and decree :
(a) directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the
4/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
suit property in favour of the plaintiff and on their failure to do
so, direct the Registrar, Madras High Court to execute the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff;
(b) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the
original title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff;
(c) such other relief the plaintiff is entitled to; and
(d) to pay the cost of the suit.
C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013 :
1.G.D.Ranka
2.Mangala Ranka ... Petitioners
Vs
M/s.E.H.Turel & Company
Rep by its Partner Mr.Viraf Tural
Sree Apartment, New No.7
No.4A, Haddows Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034.
Also at :
SA-1, Sidco Industrial Estate
MMDA Colony,Arumbakkam
Chennai – 600 106.
5/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Also at :
Sanghavi Estate, Nityanad Nagar
Off L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (W)
Mumbai – 400 086. ... Respondent
Prayer in CRP.No.3038 of 2013 : Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act,
1960, praying to set aside the judgement and decreetal order dated
14.06.2013 passed in R.C.A. No.526 of 2012 on the file of VIII Court of
Small Causes at Chennai, against the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in
M.P.No.512 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.514 of 2011 on the file of Small Causes
Court at Chennai.
For Plaintiff : Mr.C.A.Diwakar
in CS.304/2011
For defendants : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel
in CS.304/2011 for Mr.G.Krishna Kumar
For Petitioners : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel
in CRP.3038/2013 for Mr.G.Krishna Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ganesan
in CRP.3038/2013
6/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
The suit is laid for specific performance of an oral sale agreement involving
the sale of the suit property.
2.1 The case of the plaintiff may be stated as below:
a) The suit property is described as a flat measuring 2,548 sq. ft. with
two covered car parks plus undivided share in the land measuring
2 grounds and 390 sq.ft, at door Nos. 4 and 5, in Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai. It is a penthouse on the fourth floor.
b) In 1981 the defendant chose to develop a plot of land they owned
into residential apartments with four floors. The plaintiff had
purchased two flats, one measuring 1,000 sq.feet. in the ground
floor.
c) The apartment now described as the suit property is in the 4th
floor, and the defendants retained their ownership over the same.
d) The plaintiff is a dealer cum importer of industrial sewing
machines. The defendants along with their family members run
7/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
several firms and companies, and were chiefly engaged in the
manufacture and export of garments. For their business needs, the
defendants used to place orders for industrial sewing machines
with the plaintiff.
e) Be that as it may, on 01.04.1996, the plaintiff had taken two
separate leases relating to two properties of the defendants, one of
which is situated in Poonamallee, and the other is situated in
Chembarambakkam.
2.2 The further case of the Plaintiff is that:
a) In December 1996, the defendants faced financial crisis in their
business and offered the suit property for sale to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff consented to the proposal and agreed to buy the suit property
for a sale consideration of Rs.71.50 lakhs. The plaintiff was put in
possession of the suit property. According to the defendants, the
properties were given as security to M/s.Indian Bank for securing a
debt which the defendants had obtained from the bank.
8/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
b) Between 26.12.1996 and 04.11.1997, the plaintiff had paid the entire
sale consideration to the defendants. The details are as below:
Date Amount To whom payment
was made
26.12.1996 Rs.15 lakhs 1st defendant
27.3.1997 Rs.20 lakhs 1st defendant
27.3.1997 Rs.30 lakhs 2nd defendant
28.10.1997 Rs.3.0 lakhs 1st defendant
4.11.1997 Rs.3.5 lakhs 1st defendant
c) On payment of the entire sale consideration, the plaintiff requested
the defendants to execute a sale deed, but he was informed that the
original title deeds were with the bank. The defendants promised to
execute the sale deed once they redeemed the title deeds from the
bank. The plaintiff trusted the same as it shared a very cordial
relationship with the defendants.
d) While so, Indian Bank (from which the defendants had borrowed)
served the plaintiff with a notice dated 30.09.2005, under Sec.13 of
the SARFAESI Act, as the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit
9/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
property. Through the notice the bank had intimated the plaintiff that
it had taken possession of the suit property on 22.06.2005, and
required the plaintiff to pay the rent to the bank and also to vacate
the suit property to enable the bank to auction the same.
e) Wasting no time, the plaintiff contacted the defendants, and the
defendants would then inform that the negotiations were under way
for an One Time Settlement (OTS) of their debt dues to the bank, and
requested the plaintiff not to get agitated over the matter. The
defendants would then request the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.30.0
lakhs to the former to pay its debt dues to M/s.Indian Bank, and to
redeem the mortgage, obtain release of the title deeds of the property,
and complete the sale.
f) As the plaintiff was keen to complete the sale of property, it had
agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.30.0 lakhs and paid it directly
to the bank towards the OTS, under 6 demand drafts of Rs.5.0 lakhs
each in ‘no lien fixed deposit’, and thereafter to credit the same
towards the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property.
10/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
As directed, the bank had eventually credited it to the loan account of
the defendants.
g) The defendants had informed that apart from the loan-dispute with
bank, they had few more outstanding issues with the bank, and
required some more time to complete the sale since the original title
deeds were still with the bank.
h) In October 2010, the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff that the
documents would be released shortly by the bank, but began
demanding additional amount for executing the sale deed. The
plaintiff declined to pay anything more. In December 2010, the
defendants came to the plaintiff’s office and informed that the title
deeds of the suit property indeed had been released by the bank, but
persisted with their demand for additional sale consideration to
complete the sale. Since the plaintiff had already paid Rs.30.0 lakhs
over and above the sale consideration of Rs.71.50 lakhs originally
agreed, it declined to pay anything further.
i) It is in this backdrop, the defendants had issued a notice dated,
11/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
10.01.2011, wherein, they had asserted that the plaintiff was a mere
tenant of the suit property from April, 1997, on a monthly rent of
Rs.40,000/-, and that the amounts paid till date had been adjusted
against the rent payable, and that a balance rent amount of
Rs.9,54,712/- was outstanding from September, 2010, and demanded
the same to avoid eviction proceedings.
j) The plaintiff lost no time to understand the strategy of the defendants:
they had apparently taken a cue from Sec.13 notice of the Indian bank
dated 30.09.2005, under the SARFAESI Act, wherein, the bank had
described the plaintiff as a tenant of the suit property. The contention
of the defendants is plainly untenable. However, no reply was issued.
Since the parties were still in touch, the plaintiff contacted the
defendants but the defendants required the plaintiff to ignore he said
notice as they are in the process of negotiating with the bank for an
OTS.
k) However, contrary to the statement so made, the defendants
proceeded to institute R.C.O.P.No.514 of 2011 u/s.10(2)(1) of the TN
12/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, which is the subject matter
of CRP (PD) 3038 of 2013.
l) The plaintiff came to understand that in December, 2010 all the
outstanding issues between the defendants and M/s.Indian Bank had
come to an end and the bank had released the title deeds. It is in these
circumstances, the suit has become essential as the defendants
displayed a changed of attitude vis-a-vis the oral sale agreement
which the plaintiff had entered with them.
3. Admitting that there was a business relationship between them and the
plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was also a lessee of their property at
Poonamalli and Chembarambakkam, the 1st defendant filed his written
statement (which is adopted by the 2nd defendant) wherein he pleaded:
a) the suit property was a penthouse with terrace in the fourth floor
of a semi-residential apartment, and it was originally in the
possession of the defendants. Sometime in 1995, the defendants
moved out of it, and the plaintiff had approached the defendants to
13/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013lease the same to it. Thus the plaintiff was only inducted as a
mere lessee of the suit property. As the plaintiff wilfully defaulted
in paying rent, the defendants were constrained to institute
R.C.O.P.No.514 of 2011 for the eviction of the former. As a
counter blast, the plaintiff had instituted the present suit for
specific performance on the foundation of an alleged oral
agreement of sale. The allegation of an oral sale agreement and
the suit are more intended for creating a ground of defence to
RCOP 514 of 2011, and no more. There never was an oral
agreement to sell the suit property for a total consideration of
Rs.71.50 lakhs.
b) So far as the alleged payment of Rs.71.50 lakhs is concerned, it is
not paid towards the sale consideration pursuant any oral sale
agreement as alleged, but it was for an entirely different purpose
which are details as below:
14/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013Date Amount Purpose of payment
(in lakhs) according to Defendants
26.12.1996 Rs.15 For refurbishing the suit property
as requested by the plaintiff.
27.3.1997 Rs.20 Towards rent for the suit property
27.3.1997 Rs.30 @ Rs.40k/pm for 10 years paid in
advance
28.10.1997 Rs.3.0 No reference in the written
4.11.1997 Rs.3.5 statement
Indeed, when the suit property was leased, the plaintiff was given
two options: Either to pay rent for ten years in advance and to pay
property tax and water tax, or to pay Rs.50,0 lakhs as advance rent
for ten years. The plaintiff opted for the second option.
Accordingly, plaintiff was given possession in April, 1997 and the
lease term was to expire in March, 2007.
(Note: In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the rate of rent was
not stipulated, but it could be gathered from the eviction-notice
dated 10.01.2011, where the rate of rent was indicated as
Rs.40,000/- p.m.).
15/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
c) Having paid, what according to the plaintiff the entire sale
consideration, it is inconceivable that any person would postpone
the sale merely because the title deeds were with the mortgagee,
and that too for a period of 10 years. It is also inconceivable that
after paying the entire sale consideration, any purchaser would
agree to pay an additional consideration of Rs.30 lakhs as alleged
by the plaintiff.
d) When the bank issued notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the
plaintiff did not protest about its status as the tenant of the
property. On the contrary, it paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs but on the
conditions tenancy might be continued for a further period of 3 ½
years from March, 2007, and that it would vacate and handover
the vacant possession by October 2010. Left with no option and
to make payment for the OTS, the defendants had agreed for a
further extension of the lease till October, 2010, for an additional
period of 42 months) Accordingly, the plaintiff had paid an
additional consideration of Rs.30.0 lakhs to the bank directly.
16/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
e) The suit is not maintainable as it is terribly barred by limitation.
The suit is liable to be dismissed. At any rate the plaintiff is not
entitled to any discretionary relief.
4. On the above pleadings, the following issues are raised:
1.Whether the plaintiff is a registered partnership
firm, if not whether the suit is maintainable?
2. Was not the suit property handed over by the
Defendants on 26.12.2006 to the plaintiff in pursuance
of the oral Agreement to sell and on receipt of
Rs.15,00,000.00 as advance of the sale consideration?
3.Did not the defendants receive a sum of
Rs.71,50,000.00 between 26.12.1996 and 3.11.1997
and a further sum of Rs.30 Lakhs on 30.03.2006 as sale
consideration for the suit property?
4.Was not the plaintiff approached the defendants for
leasing the suit property and paid various amounts on
various dates in advance which were adjusted towards
rent?
17/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
5.Whether the present suit is barred by limitation?
6. Has not the plaintiff has been in possession of the
property from 26.12.1996 in pursuant to the contract of
sale?
7.Whether there exist any correspondence prior to
December 2011 between the Defendants and the
Plaintiff to even remotely suggest a landlord tenant
relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff?
8.Whether the Plaintiff has shown any readiness and
willingness as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the
specific relief act?
9. Is not the plaintiff entitled to a decree of specific
performance of the oral agreement of sale-dated
26.12.1996?
10.Was not the present suit is hit under Section 20(2)
Specific Relief Act?
11. What are the other relief the plaintiff is entitled
to?
5. The dispute went to trial, and during trial one of the partners of the
18/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
plaintiff’s firm was examined as P.W.1, and through him Ex.P1 to Ex.P58
were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined
as D.W.1, and no documents were produced on his side.
6. In this suit for specific performance, some of the fundamental facts are
admitted. There is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the
defendants, that the plaintiff was also put in possession of the same, which
according to the plaintiff was on 26.12.1996, but according to the
defendants it was in April, 1997. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff
at the first instance, had paid a sum of Rs.71.50 lakhs in four instalments
commencing from 26.12.1996 to 04.11.1997. Subsequently, on 29.03.2006
the plaintiff through its sister concern M/s Kiara Technologies (India) Pvt.
Ltd., had paid a sum of Rs.30.0 lakhs which was credited to the loan
account of the defendants with M/s. Indian Bank. Indeed, the plaintiff had
made all their payments through bank.
7. The plaintiff would contend that the parties hereto had entered into an
19/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
oral sale agreement, and the amounts that it had paid represented the sale
consideration. The defendants deny the same, and claim that the plaintiff is
their tenant. While, according to the plaintiff, the initial payment of
Rs.71.50 lakhs represented the entire sale consideration, plus another
Rs.30.0 lakhs to settle the defendants’ obligation under the OTS which the
bank had offered, defendants contend that Rs.50.0 lakhs out of Rs.71.50
lakhs was towards ten year advance rent paid for the suit property and the
last mentioned Rs.30.0 was towards rent for 42 months from March, 2007 to
October, 2010.
8. Is there an oral sale agreement? Or, is the plaintiff a mere tenant of the
suit property? The answers to them hold the key to resolve this dispute.
Which of the two possibilities are preponderantly probable on evidence is
the issue?
9.1 In its attempt to establish the plea of oral sale agreement, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff argued :
20/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
a) It is an admitted fact that both sides shared business-relationship
since 1982. It is proved through Ext.P1 sale deed pertaining to
one of the first floor apartment in the very residential complex in
which the suit property is also situated as a penthouse on the 4th
floor. Besides the plaintiff had also entered into two other leases
with the defendants vide Exts.P32 and to P35. Besides the
defendants had also purchased industrial sewing machine from the
plaintiff for their former’s garment business, which Ex.P2
establishes. The defendants do not deny any of them.
b) It is in this circumstances, both the plaintiff and the defendants
negotiated for the sale of the suit property, a penthouse, and there
emerged an oral sale agreement. Given the relationship between
the parties for close to 15 years, both did not consider it necessary
to enter into a formal written sale agreement.
c) On 26.12.1996, on the date of payment of first instalment of
Rs.15.0 lakhs, possession of the suit property was handed over to
the plaintiff. Ever since, the plaintiff has been paying not just the
21/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013electricity and water charges, but also the property tax payable,
and this fact is not disputed by the defendants.
d) Even though the entire sale price was paid, a formal sale deed was
not executed, essentially because, the suit property along with
other properties of the defendants were outstanding on a mortgage
to secure a loan which the defendants had obtained from
M/s.Indian Bank. Since the title deeds were left with the
mortgagee, the sale deed could not be executed. Since the plaintiff
had very little to suspect the defendants at that point of time, and
given the relationship that they shared, the plaintiff was merely
waiting for the defendants to clear the loan liability and to obtain
the release of the title deeds from the bank.
e) While so, on 30.09.2005, the creditor bank issued a notice under
Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. This is marked as Ext.P-52. In
this notice, the bank had treated the plaintiff as the tenant of the
suit property and demanded rent. The plaintiff did not respond to
it, since the defendants and the bank were then engaged in a
22/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013negotiation for OTS.
f) Subsequently, the OTS indeed was arrived between the defendants
and its banker, and as part of the deal Rs.100.0 lakhs was required
to be deposited by the defendants, out of this, Rs.30.0 lakhs was
earmarked to be paid by the plaintiff.
g) The plaintiff has a sister concern that goes by the name M/s.Kiara
Technologies. Through its sister concern, the plaintiff made a
deposit of Rs.30.0 lakhs on 31.03.2006 Vide FDR.No.0434795.
There is also an endorsement made in this, that this amount must
be held in a fixed deposit scheme for 46 days, and thereafter, it can
be appropriated towards the sale price of the property. Indeed, the
first defendant himself had issued a hand-written letter dated
31.03.2006, marked as Ext.P-48, to the bank requesting the latter
to adjust Rs.30.0 lakhs paid by M/s.Kiara Industries and to
appropriate it towards the reserve price for the suit property. This
letter specifically refers to FDR.No. 0434795. And, these aspects
are categorically admitted by the first defendant as D.W.1 in his
23/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
cross-examination. Couple of months later, the plaintiff too had
addressed Ext.P-49 communication, dated 23.05.2006 to the bank
to adjust the amount in the fixed deposits towards the sale price of
the suit property.
h) Once the adjustments were made on 13.11.2006, the first
defendant addressed the bank Vide Ext.P-50, a hand-written letter,
requesting the bank to release the title deed pertaining to the suit
property to M/s.Kiara Industries, which, to repeat is the sister-
concern of the plaintiff-company.
i) Another aspect that requires a special emphasis is that before OTS
was arrived at, the bank had initiated action under SARFAESI
Act, and the matter was pending before the DRT, Chennai in
O.A.No.745 of 1999. To this OA, the defendants had filed their
counter / reply statement. A copy of this document is marked as
Ext.P-46. In paragraph No.12 of his reply statement, D1 had made
a voluntary statement before the DRT that the suit property had
been sold to the plaintiff, and that the possession too had been
24/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
handed over to it.
j) The cumulative effect of Ext.P-16, Ext.P-46, Ext.P-48, Ext.P-49
and Ext.P-50 is that there was an oral sale agreement. It may be
that in Ext.P-46, the first defendant might have stated that the
property was already sold to the plaintiff, which in law does not
recognise, still it discloses the mental aspect of the first defendant
towards the suit property and the nature of transaction it had
entered with the plaintiff. If only it was a lease agreement as
contended by the defendants, nothing prevented the first defendant
from stating it so in Ext.P46 counter, and that he need not have
addressed Ext.P-48 to the bank and to require the bank to deliver
the title deeds of the property under Ext.P50 to M/s.Kiara
Industries. If the plaintiff was only a tenant, not one of these acts
of the defendants reconcile with the plaintiff’s status as a mere
tenant.
k) In December, 2010 or thereabouts, the bank released the title
document to the defendants, and they conveyed it to the plaintiff.
25/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
This fact the first defendant admits in his cross-examination.
l) Justly the plaintiff was expecting the defendants to execute the
sale deed, but that was not to be. Instead they issued the suit notice
dated 10.01.2011 (Ext.P-17), treating the plaintiff as their tenants,
and alleged that the plaintiff was in wilful default in paying the
rents to the suit property. When the plaintiff enquired about the
same with the defendants, they informed that this was necessitated
for some other purpose, and the plaintiff trusted it.
m) However, the defendants chose to institute RCOP.No.514 of 2011
for eviction as evidenced by Ext.P-18, and till the filing of RCOP,
the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants was
cordial, and this fact was admitted by the first defendant himself in
his cross-examination.
9.2 Shifting his focus to the case of the defendants, the learned counsel
submitted:
a) Even though the defendants had pleaded that the plaintiff is the
26/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013tenant of the suit property, they have done precious little either to
negate the effect of Ext.P-16, Ext.P-46, Ext.P-48, Ext.P-49 and
Ext.P-50 or let any independent evidence which may even
remotely suggest that the plaintiff could only be a tenant of the
suit property. This has to be appreciated in the context of Exts.P-
32 and P-34 lease deeds (pertaining to Poonamallee and
Chembarambakkam properties) which establish that the parties are
only in the habit of entering into written lease deed and not oral
leases.
b) Secondly, if according to the defendants, rents were paid in
advance were to be presumed as true, then it is belied by the fact
that the TDS relatable to Ext.P-32 and Ext.P-34, both of which
related to the rental agreements Exts.P-33 and Ext.P-35 indicate
that the rents were received at the commencement of the lease.
And so far as the alleged oral lease of the suit property is
concerned, the defendants have not chosen to produce the TDS
certificates similar to Exts.P-32 and Ext.P34.
27/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
c) Thirdly, the defendants would contend that Rs.15.0 lakhs paid by
the plaintiff on 26.12.1996, was received by them for refurbishing
the suit property before handing over the possession to the
plaintiff, but there are no documentary evidence to that effect, and
the first defendant admits the same in his cross-examination.
d) Things were going smooth till 2010, but in 2010, when the first
defendant obtained the title deeds from the bank, he entertained a
temptation to obtain a higher consideration. Hence, he seized an
opportunity and called the plaintiff as his tenant, perhaps taking a
cue from Ext.P-52 notice, where the Indian bank had described the
plaintiff as the tenant of the suit property.
e) The defendants have contrived a strategy of naming the plaintiff as
their tenant, and attempted to sell that idea in Ext.P17, notice
dated 10.01.2011. In this, the second instalment of Rs.50.0 lakhs
paid to the defendants is stated to be non-refundable deposit.
However, the same notice subsequently describes that subsequent
rents were adjusted were adjusted against this non-refundable
28/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
deposit. The second part of the statement of the defendants may be
tenable only if the deposit is refundable, and not the non-
refundable deposit. It would then say that Rs.50.0 lakhs so paid
was adjusted against the rent payable upto 27.02.1997, and Rs.30
lakhs which the plaintiff had paid through Kiara Industries under
Ext.P-16 was towards the payment of subsequent rents for 3 ½
years, from March, 2007 to October, 2010, and it proceeds to say
that at the end of September 2010, total arrears of rent was
Rs.89,54,912/-, but the defendants would still claim arrears of rent
from 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2010 at the rate of Rs.2,26,278/- . Here
it is curious to note, that in the written statement the defendants
claim that the tenancy commenced in April, 1997 and for ten
years, which implied, it should end in March, 2007, and if at all
there should be an extension of lease, then can commence only
from April, 2007. However, in the same written statement, they
further plead that the extension of lease by 42 months commenced
from March, 2007, which implied, that the 42 months period
29/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
would end in August, 2010 and not September, 2010. The
defendants apparently have spun a web of falsity and allowed
themselves to be entrapped in it. Even if it were a mistake then
the defendants should have explained it, but in the RCOP
(Ext.P18), they replicate the same allegations.
Reliance was placed on the dictum in Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade
Vs. The New Mofussil Co. Ltd., [59 L.W. 370 (PC)]; K.Nanjappa Vs.
R.A.Hameed alias Ameersab [2016 (1) SCC 762]; Vairavan Vs.
K.S.Vidyanandan & 3 others [1995-2-L.W.50]; Syed Dastagir Vs.
T.R.Gopalakrishna Setty [1999(6) SCC 337]; Narinderjit Singh Vs. North
Star Estate Promoters Ltd., Satya Jain (dead) Vs. Anis Ahmed
Rushdie(dead) [2013 (8) SCC 131]; Motilal Jain Vs. Ramdasi Devi and
others [2000(6) SCC 420]; Faquir Chand and another Vs. Sudesh Kumari
[2006 912) SCC 146]; Gurdial Kaur (dead) Vs. Piara Singh (dead)
[2008(14 SCC 735]; T.Mohan Vs. Kannammal and another [2002 (10)
SCC 82]; A.N.Arunachalam Vs. T.Sivaprakasam [2011(1) MWN (Civil)
30/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
819]; Ms.Promilla Sethi Vs. Inder Narain & others [2011(122) DRJ 251];
P.D’Souza Vs. Shondrilo Naidu [2004(6) SCC 649]; Zarina Siddiqui Vs.
A.Ramalingam [2015(1) SCC 705]; K.Prakash Vs.B.R.Sampath Kumar
[2015(1) SCC 597]; V.Arumugam Vs. R.Chandrasekaran and another
[2016-4-LW 649]; Rathnavathi and another Vs. Kavitha
Ganashamdas[2015(5) SCC 223]; S.Brahmanand and others Vs.
K.R.Muthugopal (dead) and others [2005 (12)SCC 764]; Panchanan
Dhara and others Vs. Monmatha Nath Maity (dead) [2006 (5) SCC 340];
Mademsetty Satyanarayana Vs.G.Yelloji Rao and others [AIR 1965 SC
1405]; Ramjas Foundations and another Vs. Union of India and others
[2010(14) SCC 38]; Silvey and others Vs. Arun Varghese and another
[2008(11) SCC 45]; Manicka Gounder and another Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
[2002-3-LW 281]; Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs.Gopal
Vinayak Gosavi and others [1960 91) SCR 773]; Veerayee Ammal Vs.
Seeni Ammal [2002 (1) SCC 134]; Mukesh Singh Vs. Saurabh
Chaudhary [2019 SCC Online All 5523 : (2019) 135 ALR 884].
31/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
10. Arguing for the defendants, Mr.M.K.Kabir, the learned senior counsel,
made the following submissions :
a) The case of the plaintiff can be split into four time zones :
➢ The first phase is between 26.12.1996, the date of the alleged
formation of the oral agreement and 30.09.2005;
➢ Between 30.09.2005, the date on which the Indian Bank,
(which had a security inter alia over the suit property for a loan
that it had advanced, issued Ext.P52 notice under Sec.13 of the
SARFAESI Act in October, 2010;
➢ Between October 2010, when the first defendant alleged to
have informed the plaintiff that he had received the title deeds
from the bank and alleged to have made a fresh demand for
additional consideration and 10.01.2011; and
➢ 10.01.2011, when the defendant had issued Ext.P17 notice
demanding arrears of rent from the plaintiff.
If the facts that have taken place in each of these phases are co-
32/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013related into a logical sequence and tested for its believability, then
it would establish that the plaintiff had made use of certain
payments that it had made to the defendants for creating an oral
sale agreement that never was.
b) According to the plaintiff, the oral agreement was dated
26.12.1996, on which date, the defendants have agreed to sell the
suit property for a total consideration of Rs.71.50 lakhs; that he
had paid Rs.15.0 lakhs on the very date; that subsequently he paid
the balance amount in four instalments, the last of which was on
04.11.1997. However, as per Sec.230A of the Income Tax Act
which then in force, any transaction involving a conveyance of an
immovable property exceeding a value of Rs.25.0 lakhs ought to
pass the scrutiny of the appropriate authority constituted under the
Income Tax Act. The plaintiff is a partnership firm, and it is
inconceivable that they would rush to enter into a oral sale
agreement for a sum exceeding Rs.25.0 lakhs without a formal
written sale agreement executed between the parties. In this
33/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013context, it would be relevant to mention that earlier to the alleged
transaction, the plaintiff had purchased an apartment in the ground
floor.
c) If the storyline of the plaintiff was to be trusted, then after it had
paid the full sale consideration, it was seen in a state of absolute
inaction, if not in deep state of hibernation till Ext.P52 notice,
dated 30.09.2005. It defies common sense as it is irreconcilable
with the ordinary course of human conduct, that it required
Ext.P52 notice issued by the bank under Sec.13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act to activate the plaintiff. Secondly in this notice,
the bank had described the plaintiff as the tenant of the suit
property, but the plaintiff did not show any anxiety to react.
d) The defendant’s contention is that he was in a desperate need of
averting a potential sale of their properties by the bank and that
they were in need of money. Here it is relevant to indicate the
defence side of the case. According to the defendant, the suit
property had been leased out to the plaintiff; that the defendant
34/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
had earlier leased out two of these properties, one at
Chembarambakkam and another at Poonamallee; that the plaintiff
had always been in the habit of paying rent in a lumpsum, and in
advance, and it followed the same pattern even when it took the
suit property in lease. The arrangement was that the plaintiff
would have this property for lease from 01.03.1997 for a period of
10 years, and this 10 year period ended in February, 2007. Now
about 18 months prior to the expiry of the lease term, Ext.P52
notice was issued by the bank. It is in these circumstances, the
defendants were in need of money need of money for averting a
precipitate action by the bank.
e) On receipt of the notice, the plaintiff did convey his interest to
extend the lease on 01.03.2007 for another 42 months, ending with
October 2010. Rs.30.0 lakhs was thus paid on behalf of the
plaintiff by its sister concern M/s.Kiara Technologies Limited.
Indeed, this amount was put in a fixed deposit by M/s.Kiara
Technologies and was eventually adjusted only subsequently, and
35/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
curiously enough no document was returned/received either by the
plaintiff or to M/s.Kiara Technologies. This indicates that the said
sum of Rs.30.0 lakhs was not intended to be adjusted only against
an additional sale consideration of Rs.30.0 lakhs as is now
contended by the plaintiff.
f) Even thereafter, the plaintiff remained immobile till the defendants
issued Ext.P17 notice, dated 10.01.2011, close to about two
months after the expiry of the lease term agreed to between the
parties. In this notice, the defendants had alleged that the plaintiff
was a tenant of the suit property and demanded arrears of rent.
Curiously enough, the plaintiff did not care to respond to the
same. It may have to be underscored that twice the plaintiff was
termed as a tenant, first by the bank in its Ext.P52 notice, and
second by the defendant himself in Ext.P17. But the plaintiff
would continue to be in a saintly silence.
g) At any time from 26.12.1996 till the receipt of the notice in
RCOP.No.514/2011, the plaintiff which claims to have invested a
36/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
little over a crore of rupees for purchasing a penthouse, has not
chosen to issue a notice demanding the defendants to perform their
part of the contract. If civil litigations are to be decided by the
rule of preponderance of probabilities, then the probability of the
plaintiff’s conduct improbablises his assertion about the existence
of a sale agreement.
h) This apart, in Ext.P21 and Ext.P22, which are the balance sheets
of the plaintiff for the assessment year 1997-1998 (previous year
1996-1997) and 1998-1999 (previous year 1997-1998), the
various amounts paid by the plaintiff through Exts.P3 to P7
(totaling Rs.71.50 lakhs) were shown as deposits and not as
investments. This has to be read in conjunction with Exts.P8 and
P9, which are the copies of sale deeds obtained by the plaintiff
pertaining to another apartment (other than the one covered under
Ext.P1) from a certain Sushila Gopinath, the sale consideration
paid was shown as investments, and not as deposits. This belies
the contention of the plaintiff that the amount paid under Exts.P3
37/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
to P7 were towards sale consideration. And when the plaintiff had
purchased a property from a certain Anik Properties during the
year 1996-1997, it has showed it only as an investment and not as
deposit.
Reliance was placed on the authorities in K.Nanjappa (dead) by LRs Vs
R.A.Hameed alias Ameersan (Dead) by LRs and another [2016-2-
L.W.673]; S.E.Zarina Begum and others Vs P.M.S.Latiff [2016-2-
L.W.726]; H.R. Subramanya Shastry and others Vs Sri.K.Mohan Kumar
[ILR 2021 KAR 2507]; Ameer Mohammed Vs Barkat Ali [AIR 2022 Raj
406]; G.Manoharan Vs R.Edwin Solomon [(2020) 4 MLJ 369]; M.Sankar
Nadar and another Vs Deva Krishnan [2017 (1) CTC 561]; Subhash
Chander Kathuria Vs Umed Singh and another [AIR 2006 DELHI 194];
T.L.Muddukrishana and another Vs Lalitha Ramachandra Rao [(1997) 2
SCC 611]; Mehboob Pasha Vs Syed Zaheeruddin [1988 AIR (Karnataka)
83]; Manjunath Anandappa URF Shivappa Hanasi Vs Tammanasa and
others [(2003) 10 SCC 390]; K.A.Kumaresan Vs K.S.Nanjundan and
38/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
others [2018 (3) CTC 89]; K.S.Vidyanadam and others Vs Vairavan
[(1997) 3 SCC 1]; Husenabibi and another Vs Abdulmiya Kasammiya
Kureshi and others [2007 AIR (Gujarat) 56]; Indravathi Vs Kamala [2000
(IV) CTC 278]; Saradamani Kandappan Vs S.Rajalakshmi and others
[(2011) 12 SCC 18]; Ranganatha Gounder Vs Sahadeva Gounder and
others [2004-4-L.W.807]; M.Kumar Vs V.Balan [2021-1-L.W.932].
11. Replying the above submissions, the counsel for the plaintiff made the
following submissions :
a) Contrary to the contentions of the counsel for the defendants that
Ext.P21 and Ext.P22, the various sums paid by the plaintiff under
Exts.P3 to Ext.P7 are concerned, that is precisely how the plaintiff
accounts for the money it had paid, Whenever the plaintiff
purchases any properties and makes any payment, prior to the
actual sale in its books it is always shown as deposit amount, and
once the sale fructifies, the same money is shown as the value of
the asset in the balance sheet. Otherwise, from the time of
39/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013payment till actual sale, the money will be essentially in some
kind of suspense account. The plaintiff has adopted this
accounting methodology, and it also gets reflected vis-a-vis the
payments made for Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 sale deeds. The sale
consideration paid under Ext.P8 was Rs.23,50,000/-, and that
which was paid for car parking under Ext.P9 was Rs.4,50,000/-.
Towards this purchase, the plaintiff had paid an initial advance of
Rs.4,00,000/- to their vendor Sushila Gopinath and it gets
reflected in Ext.P21 income tax returns only under the column
“deposit”. And the actual purchase took place about a year later
during the financial year 1997-1998, and that gets reflected in the
income tax return for the assessment year 1998-1999 (Ext.P22),
where it reflects as an additional asset acquired during the
previous year 1997-1998. And in the case of Anik Properties to
which reference was made by the counsel for the defendants with
reference to cross-examination P.W.1, there was an actual
purchase during the previous year 1996-1997, and hence, it is
40/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
shown as investment. Therefore, how the monies are accounted
in the books of account of the plaintiff does not and should not
concern the defendants but what is relevant is whether the plaintiff
had been consistent in the manner of its accounting.
b) When the plaintiff had already purchased the first floor apartment
in the same building under Ext.P8 and Ext.P9, there is hardly any
reason for the plaintiff to take the suit property in lease, which is
in the fourth floor of the same apartment.
c) So far as the payment of Rs.30.0 lakhs by M/s Kiara to Indian
Bank to close a loan account which the defendants had with the
said bank in terms of the OTS, the defendants were required to pay
Rs.30.0 lakhs to the bank latest by 30.03.2006. And the first
defendant indeed had acknowledged this payment by Kiara
Technologies to M/s.Indian Bank vide Ext.P48 letter dated,
31.03.2006, in which he had referred to Rs.30.0 lakhs as reserve
price of fourth floor. An endorsement to this effect is seen in
Ext.P16.
41/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
d) So far as the allegation attributing inaction on the part of the
plaintiff for close to ten years and that this inaction essentially
because the the title documents of the suit property were with the
bank, which it realised only in December, 2010 or thereabouts.
e) It is seen from Ext.P12 that all the rates and taxes payable for the
suit property including the property tax has been paid even during
the alleged period of inaction only by the plaintiff.
Discussion & Decision
12. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.71.50 lakhs between 26.12.1996 and
04.11.1997. The receipt of the said money, all paid through demand drafts,
are detailed in para 2.2(b) is not disputed. However, the defendants have
chosen to explain only about the receipt of Rs.65.0 lakhs (no matter if there
is evidentiary probability to believe the said explanation), but has offered no
explanation for receiving Rs.3.0 lakhs on 28.10.1997 vide Ext.P6 and
Rs.3.50 lakhs on 04.11.2007 vide Ext.P7. This court observed a disquieting
silence on this aspect in the written statement. This will now set the tone
42/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
for further discussion for ascertaining the believability of the rival
contentions involving an oral sale agreement Vs oral lease, and to decide
which one of these two versions holds the greater probability of being true?
A decision on it is determined more on facts, and hence notwithstanding the
fact that both sides competed with each other to rely on several authorities,
it is the evidence on record that will essentially decide the issue.
13. Before delving deep on the merit of rival submissions and the
evidentiary facts place before this Court, Issues Nos: 1 and 5 can be
addressed straight away.
Issues Nos: 1 and 5
14. The 1st issue is on the maintainability of the suit and is about the status
of the plaintiff as to whether it is a firm, and whether the suit is
maintainable, if it were so? Nowhere in the written statement is the status
of the plaintiff seen to have been denied or disputed, nor any issue on the
maintainability of the suit is raised. Necessarily, this Court holds that this
43/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
issue is fundamentally unnecessary, but having framed, it is decided in
favour of the plaintiff.
15. Turning to issue No. 5, the issue is, if the suit is barred by limitation. So
far as this issue is concerned, the terminus quo for reckoning limitation for a
suit for specific performance will be determined by the terms of contract. If
it were a written contract, the term as to time for performance can be
reasonably ascertained from it. However, the plaint alleges an oral contract,
and the time for performance is open-ended in the plaint. Therefore, in
terms of the the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, limitation
for institution of suit will run only from the date of denial to perform the
contractual obligation by the defendant. In this case, this denial was made
known to the plaintiff only through Ext.P17 notice dated, 10.01.2011
issued by the defendant. And the suit is laid on 12.04.2011, well within
three years. The suit is therefore, not barred by limitation. This issue also is
decided in favour of the plaintiff.
44/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Issues 2,4 and 6
16. Now to the core issue: Oral sale agreement Vs Oral lease. Very
obviously, the believability of any one of these rival claims depends
fundamentally on their preponderating evidentiary probability. To state it
differently it is based purely on evidence, and how it appeals to the
conscience of the reasonable man of law.
17.1 Before embarking on a discussion to explore the probability of rival
contentions, it has become mandatory to examine the sustainability of
defendants’ plea of oral lease for ascertaining if the defendants had received
Rs.71.50 lakhs in 1996-1997 under Exts.P3 to P7 plus Rs.30.0 lakhs under
Exs.P 49 read along with Ext.P16 towards advance rent respectively for a
period of 10 years and 42 months. And the plaintiff admittedly is in
possession of the suit property.
17.2 While setting up this plea, what the defendants appeared to have
overlooked was that under Sec.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a
“lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding
45/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered
instrument”. Sec.17(1) (d) of the Registration Act reinforces same aspect.
Therefore, no court will ever take cognizance of an oral lease for ten years
reserving rent payable for the entire term of the lease unless the lease is
created under a registered document. Here, a distinction may have to be
drawn between a lease created under an unregistered lease deed which may
or may not have been adequately stamped. If a lease deed is written but
unstamped or inadequately stamped then the document can be impounded
and the stamp deficiency can be rectified under Sec.35 of the Stamp Act,
but there is no statutory cure to remedy non-registration of a document that
requires registration. It is these categories of documents which the courts
have allowed to be admitted in evidence for proving collateral purposes
such as proving the character of possession, which does not touch upon the
terms of the document. This principle however, cannot be extended to
situation where a lease is said to be orally created when in law it ought to
have been under a registered document. Secondly, in terms of Sec.91 of the
Evidence Act (Sec.94 BSA), where the terms of any contract, grant, or other
46/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
disposition of property is either reduced to writing or where law requires it
to be in writing, then the terms thereof can be proved only through the
production of the document and not through parole evidence. In the instant
case, Rs.101.5 lakhs was alleged to have been received by the defendants as
advance rent for a oral lease which exceeds more than a year, and
necessarily constitutes a material term of the lease. And, the court may not
consider the plea of the defendants on oral lease and payment of advance
rent. In effect, the defendants have lost a wicket before they scored a run.
18. Having held thus, this court will still consider it necessary to evaluate
the defendants’ case on merit for evaluating the sustainability of the
plaintiff’s case for specific performance, where the conduct of the plaintiff is
as much important as the merit of the case it presents for securing the
remedy that it seeks.
19. The plaintiff had paid Rs.71.50 lakhs under Exts.P3 to P7 demand
drafts between 26.12.1996 and 04.11.1997, and about nine years later
47/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
another Rs.30.0 lakhs under Ext.P-16, dated 29.03.2006 to be read along
with Ext.P49, dated 23.05.2006 through its sister concern, M/s Kiara
Technologies. Does it represent the sale consideration as alleged by the
plaintiff, or payment of advance rent as contended by the defendants. Here
few facts are require to be considered:
a) Of Rs.71.50 lakhs which the plaintiff had paid, the defendants
contend that Rs.15.0 lakhs paid by it under Ext.P3, represents the
cost of refurbishing the suit property. This implies that the alleged
refurbishing of the suit property was done by the defendants with
the money which the plaintiff had paid. The plaintiff denies the
purpose for the payment of this money, and hence the burden is
on the defendants to establish that the money indeed was intended
for actual refurbishing of the suit property, and that it had been so
spent. But the defendants have neither produced any bills, nor let
in other evidence to establish that Rs.15.0 lakhs (which in 1996
was lot of money), was actually spent for the purpose that they
claim. Necessarily this plea of the defendants fails.
48/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
b) What now remains is Rs.56.50 lakhs. Of this the plaintiff had paid
Rs.20.0 lakhs and another Rs.30.0 lakhs respectively vide Ext.P4
and Ext.P5 demand drafts, both dated 26.03.1997. The defendants
would contend that these are advance rent amount paid by the
plaintiff for the suit property from 01.04.1997 for ten years. If the
lease were to commence on 01.04.1997, then the ten year period
would expire by 31.03.2007. It may be stated that in the written
statement, the date of commencement of alleged tenancy was not
specifically pleaded, but finds a mention in Ext.P17 notice, which
formed the basis for RCOP No.514 of 2011 from which
CRP(NPD) 3038 of 2013 has arisen. In the written statement the
defendants make a crafty pleadings when they allege that the
defendants had given the plaintiff either to pay advance rent for
ten years or to pay Rs.50.0 lakhs. No reference was made to the
monthly rent payable if it were the first option, or the rate of
monthly rent at which Rs.50.0 lakhs would be adjusted if it were
the second option. It is in Ext.P17 eviction notice, the defendants
49/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
allege that the monthly rent payable was Rs.40,000/-. Now, what
is intriguing is that the total amount payable for 120 months @
Rs.40,000 a month would be Rs.48.0 lakhs. Now why should the
plaintiff pay another two lakhs towards advance rentals? If
Rs.50.0 lakhs represents ten year advance rent, then it works out to
Rs.41,666 a month. The second aspect is that if the rent were to
be paid for ten years in advance, then unless the terms offered
provides an incentive, such as for instance any attractive discount
in the total sum payable as rent for ten years is offered, no sane
lessee would ever opt to gift Rs.50.0 lakhs as advance rent. What
is offered by the defendants is a penalty and not a discount, for by
opting to pay Rs.50.0 lakhs as advance rent, the plaintiff would
end up paying Rs.2.0 lakhs more than the total rent if he had
opted to pay Rs.40,000 a month for 120 months.
c) To the point (b) above, it may have to be added that about the
same time, to be precise 31.07.1997, the plaintiff had purchased a
flat measuring a plinth area of 1,450 sq.ft in the first floor of the
50/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
same apartment of which the suit property forms the penthouse in
the 4th floor, together with proportionate UDS and car parking
from a certain Sushila Gopinath for a total consideration of
Rs.28.0 lakhs. And the total extent of the suit property is 2,548
sq.ft, which is about 1,000 sq.ft more than the extent covered
under Ext.P8. Does it logically stands to reason, given the
ordinary course of human conduct, that plaintiff should pay
advance rent of Rs.50.0 lakhs, when he could have easily
purchased the suit property with that money plus the remaining
21.50 lakhs?
d) This apart the plaintiff also under an obligation to pay property tax
for a tenanted premises. Was this penthouse offers an incredible
experience that a reasonable man of law should pay a premium-
rent for his stay plus property tax?
e) Indeed, the plaintiff had paid more, and not just Rs.50.0 lakhs.
Here the defendants have to account as to why they received
Rs.3.0 lakhs under Ext.P6, dated 28.10.1997 and Rs.3.50 lakhs
51/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
under Ext.P7, dated 04.11.1997? The defendants had admitted that
they had received these amounts, but go blissfully silent as to why
they received the money? Thus Rs.71.50 lakhs which the
defendants had received can be split into two parts: (i) Rs.65.0
lakhs on specific heads, which is either not proved or cannot be
believed; and (ii) Rs.6.50 lakhs where there is a ghostly silence.
20. There therefore, is a greater probability in evidence which outweighs
the contention of the defendants that the receipt of Rs.15.0 lakhs + Rs.50.0
lakhs out of Rs. 71.50 lakhs which the plaintiff had paid them under Exts.P3
to P5 were neither towards refurbishing the suit property, nor towards
advance rent for ten years.
21.1 The next issue is whether Rs.30.0 lakhs which the plaintiff had paid
through its sister concern Kiara Technologies vide Exts.P16 and P49 could
be for advance rent payable for 42 months. Here the first problem is in
computing these months. As stated earlier, in Ext P.17, the defendants
52/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
allege that the plaintiff became the tenant of the suit property in April, 1997.
And, since Rs.50.0 lakhs was paid on 27.03.1997, it may be presumed that it
could be from 01.04.1997. If that is so, then ten year period as contended
by the defendants would end in March, 2007. But according to the
defendants the lease was extended from March, 2007, which implied that
the original lease should have expired by February, 2007. And, since the
defendants committed the first blunder, it followed it with a second blunder
when they claim that the 42 months period ended in September, 2010, when
it should have ended in August, 2010. Only their counsel tried to save them
from further embarrassment, when he tried to correct these blunders in his
arguments. But, this court cannot ignore the defendants’ wobbling pleading,
since it is now a serious pursuit to assess the conduct of the defendants.
21.2 Now, if Rs.50.0 lakhs paid under Exts.P4 and P5 could not be treated
as rent for ten years, then it leads to the next inference that there is a
preponderating probability that the alleged lease of the suit property for an
initial period of ten years (which according the defendants should conclude
53/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
on 31.03.2007) becomes unbelievable. Therefore, if Rs.30.0 lakhs which
Kiara Techonologies paid has to be construed as advance rent for 42 months
from 01.04.2007, then it requires a fresh lease for 42 months, but the
defendants contention was that the plaintiff had been its tenant for ten years
(up to 31.03.2007), and the lease for 42 months was not a fresh lease but a
renewal of the subsisting lease for 42 months. This plea of the defendants,
therefore, is on a heavily wobbling plane. Another associated fact is that
this amount of Rs.30.0 lakhs was deposited in six fixed deposits vide
Ext.P16, on 29.03.2007, exactly a year before the ten year period when the
lease was to expire. This anxiety to extend the lease a yer ahead of the
expiry of the original term of lease is plainly baffling.
21.3. On this aspect, this court cannot ignore that in 2007, the apartment
must at least must be 25+ years old, because Ext.P1 under which the
plaintiff had first purchased an apartment from the defendants in the same
complex was in 1982. If Rs.30.0 lakhs must represent the advance rent for
42 months in 2007, arithmetically it works out to Rs.71,428.57 a month.
54/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Would anyone in 2007, pay about Rs.72,000/- a month as rent for a 25 +
year old penthouse measuring a mere 2,548 sq. ft. with a car parking?
Prima facie the rate of rent is shockingly high priced, and unless the
defendant is able to establish that this amount matches the monthly rent
payable for a similar building in 2007, it would be nigh difficult to consume
what the defendants have served this court court. But the defendants have
neither chosen to trouble themselves nor this court with any evidence to
prove that their contention could be a remote possibility.
22. The foregoing discussion leads to the only possible conclusion that the
plaintiff was not the tenant of the defendants vis-a-vis the suit property, and
that the sum of Rs.71.50 lakhs initially paid under Exts.P3 to P7 and the
subsequent Rs.30.0 lakhs vide Exts.P16 to be read with Ext.P49 were not
towards advance rent for any of the lease period as contended by the
defendants contend. Issue No:4 is decided against the defendants.
23. What then was the character of plaintiff’s possession of the suit property
55/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
either from 26.12.1996 (the date on which it paid the first installment of
Rs.15.0 lakhs under Ext.P3, which according to the plaintiff was the date on
which it was put in possession) or from 01.04.1997 (which according to the
defendant was after the payment of Rs.50.0 lakhs vide Exts.P4 and P5 dated
27.03.1997). When exactly has the plaintiff entered possession of the suit
property? Except the oral testimony of both the sides, this court could not
lay its hands on any specific documentary evidence to arrive at a
conclusion. However, at this distant point of time, it is immaterial too. All
this Court can now hold is that the plaintiff had come into possession of the
property not as the tenant of the suit property.
Issue No:3
24. Having found that the defendants plea of tenancy is unfounded, this
Court now endeavours to ascertain whether the payment of Rs.71.50 lakhs +
Rs.30.0 lakhs were paid towards sale consideration of the suit property.
After all, merely because the line of defence adopted by the defendants has
failed that does not automatically constitute the proof of plaintiff’s plea.
56/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
More, so in a case of specific performance, where every single step of the
plaintiff will be under the scanner. This now brings to focus the effect of
Ext.P45, Ext.P48, and Ext.P50. Let each of these documents be now
considered:
a) Ext.P45 is the copy of the OA 577 of 2001 which the Indian Bank
had filed inter alia against the defendants before the DRT, Chennai,
seeking a recovery certificate for realising the amounts due under
several loans plus to sell the various assets which are offered as
security in case of default. The suit property was described in
Schedule E of OA 577 of 2001. Ext.P46 is the counter filed by the
defendants. In paragraph 12 of Ext.P46 the defendants had pleaded
that the suit property had been sold to the plaintiff with the
knowledge of the bank. And, this was admitted by D.W.1 in his cross
examination.
b) As stated, on 29.03.2006, vide Ext.P16, Kiara Technologies had
deposited Rs.30.0 lakhs in fixed deposit with Indian Bank in six
deposits of Rs.5.0 lakhs each for a term of 45 days. In this
57/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013circumstances, the first defendant had written Ext.P48, a hand-written
letter, to the Indian Bank, wherein he had required the bank to
“appropriate Rs.30.0 lakhs today towards the reserve price of fourth
floor bearing door No:4-A, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6. On your
receipt of balance payment from us kindly release the document
pertaining to the above mentioned property to Kiara Techonology
(India) Pvt. Ltd, or their authorised representatives along with No
claim certificate.” This letter too has been admitted by D.W.1.
c) Next comes Ext.P50, another hand-written communication, dated
13.11.2006, from the first defendant to the Indian Bank wherein he
records the payment of amounts pursuant to the OTS, and requires
the bank inter alia to release the title documents of suit property to
Kiara Technologies. Ext.P50 was also admitted by D.W.1.
What more requires to tilt the probability of the case which the plaintiff has
put forth in its favour?
58/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
25. The counter argument of the defendants is threefold: (a) that none who
had paid Rs.71.50 lakhs in 1996-1997 would wait for ten year without doing
anything for having the sale deed executed; (b) None would pay another
Rs.30.0 lakhs as additional sale consideration and (c) the accounting pattern
of the plaintiff in Exts. P21 and P22. So far as the first argument goes,
admittedly till November, 2006, the encumbrance over the suit property
created in favour of Indian Bank was subsisting, and title documents are
with the bank till the end of 2010. The plaintiff’s waiting was therefore,
commonsensical and justifiable. Turning to the second argument, after
paying Rs.71.50 lakhs, the plaintiff was faced with a possibility of losing
the property to Indian Bank, since the bank had instituted OA 577 of 2001.
Therefore, the plaintiff, justly anxious to save the money it had already
invested apparently had chosen to additional money, and it is
understandable. And, the last argument – about accounting. This perhaps
is most amusing piece of argument, perhaps made out of desperation. In the
face of Exts.P46, 48 and 50, how does it matter how the plaintiff accounts
the money it had paid in its books of account. At any rate, it has explained it
59/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
in its reply argument, and this court finds the same acceptable.
26. Unquestionably there is a preponderating probability that the plaintiff
had paid Rs.71.5 lakhs + Rs.30.0 lakhs to the defendants only towards the
sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property. Issue No 3 is
decided in favour of the plaintiff.
27.1 Now, has the plaintiff made a false statement vis-a-vis the date on
which it came into possession of the suit property? It asserts it was on
26.12.1996, the date on which it had paid Rs.15.0 lakhs under Ext.P3.
When this court has found that the entire amounts paid by the plaintiff was
towards sale consideration of the suit property, going by ordinary course of
human conduct, it would be difficult to believe that the one who pays the
money without documenting the purpose for which it paid, might have at
least entered possession. Issues No 2 and 6 are decided accordingly.
27.2 Here it is not difficult to unlayer the defendants’ strategy in defence.
60/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
They have received Rs.71.50 lakhs between 26.12.1996 (vide Ext.P3) and
04.11.1997 (Ext.P7). They have to explain. And they have issued Ext.P17
notice for eviction on 10.01.2011 on ground of willful default in the matter
of payment of rent. Effectively they had about 15 years from the date of
Ext.P3. And because every money was accounted, they obviously had
began spinning their story: The first Rs.15.0 lakhs towards refurbishing the
suit property; The next Rs.50.0 lakhs towards rent for ten years. And
Rs.30.0 lakhs paid vide Ext.P49 read with Ext.P16 towards further rent. But,
when did lease commence? Because Rs. 50.0 lakhs was paid on
27.03.1997, couple of days before the next financial year, it became easy for
the defendants to fix the date of commencement of lease to 01.04.1997.
And, against Rs.30.0 lakhs was deposited on 29.03.2006, which was about
one year before the completion of ten year period, and the defendants
thought it fit to describe it as rent for 42 months, because only then will the
defendants have few months left for them to allege willful default in paying
rent.
61/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
28. Ordinarily, this Court refrains from judging the parties as its purpose is
to judge the cause and not the characters behind the cause. But this is a suit
for specific performance where the conduct of the defendants is as much a
factor as the conduct of the plaintiff. If the evidence is filtered for its purity
through the membrane of fairness, the defendants lose their case by miles.
Their greed is apparent, and the fraud they had devised is evident. This
litigation is truly an avoidable one, but for the utter lack of fairness in the
consciousness and conduct of the defendants. And, it does make true the
immortal lines of Justice Midha, former Judge of the Delhi High Court
which he made in his farewell speech: “In court of justice, both the parties
know the truth, it is the judge who is on trial.”
CRP (NPD) 3038 of 2013
29.1 Turning to CRP.No.3038 of 2013, the challenge is to the order of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.526 of 2012.
29.2 The short facts of the case is that the defendants have filed
62/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
R.C.O.P.No.514 of 2011 under Sec.10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent) Control Act, to evict the plaintiff / respondents from the
property on the ground that the tenant (the plaintiff in the suit) had
committed wilful default in the matter of payment of rent. A counter was
filed by the plaintiff denying the averments. Subsequently, the
defendants/petitioners have taken out an application in M.P.No.512/2011 to
amend the RCOP petition to one under Sec.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of the
Act, seeking eviction for denying the landlord’s title without bonafide. This
petition for amendment was allowed by the the Rent Controller.
29.3 Challenging the said order, an appeal in R.C.A.No.526 of 2012 was
preferred by the plaintiff, and this came to be allowed stating that
M.P.No.512/2011 is not maintainable either on facts and law, and the triable
issue about the existence of a jural relationship between the parties as
landlord and tenant has to be decided in the pending suit in
C.S.No.304/2011 before this Court. This order of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority is under challenge in CRP (NPD) 3038 of 2013.
63/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
30. Whereas in C.S.No.304 of 2011, this Court had found that since the
plaintiff was in possession pursuant to an oral agreement, there can never be
a landlord – tenant relationship between the parties. Necessarily, this Court
holds that R.C.O.P.No.514 of 2011 is not maintainable on any grounds
under the Act.
31. To conclude, the suit is required to be decreed. However, as already
indicated the suit itself was necessitated by what this court considers as the
unfair attitude of the defendants in creating a non-existing tenancy when
they knew or ought to have known the effects of Ext.P46, Ext.P48 and
Ext.P50 which the first defendant himself had written. In effect, the attitude
of over-ambitious defendants has wasted the judicial time and this Court
considers it appropriate that such tendencies of the litigants in taking up
false plea leading to wastage of judicial time needs to be appropriately
curbed.
64/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Result :
A. C.S.304 of 2011
1. The suit is decreed with costs, and the defendants are directed to
execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the
plaintiff and to hand over the original title deeds of the suit property
to the plaintiff;
B. CRP(NPD) 3038 of 2013
2. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
06.12.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ds
65/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
APPENDIX
I. Witnesses :
Plaintiff :
PW1 Viraf Turel
PW2 Nikhil Madhav Sampat
Defendant :
DW1 G.D.Ranka (first defendant)
II. Exhibits :
Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 25.03.1982 Certified copy of sale deed and construction agreement
by defendants in favour of plaintiff in respect of 876
sq.ft. Of UDS and for construction of ground floor –
showroom and first floor – flat.
Ex.P2 09.11.1987 Sample letters, invoices and bills pertaining to business
to transaction between plaintiff and defendants between
12,06.2001 09.11.1987 to 12.06.2001.
Ex.P3 26.12.1996 Photocopy of D.D.bearing No.403496 dated 26.12.1996
for Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of first defendant with
acknowledgement
Ex.P4 26.03.1997 Plaintiff’s letter to its banker for issuance of D.D. for
Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of first defendant, along with
photocopy of demand draft bearing 403928 dated
27.03.1997 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P5 26.03.1997 Plaintiff’s letter to its banker for issuance of D.D. for
Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of second defendant, along
with photocopy of demand draft bearing 403927 dated
27.03.1997 for Rs.30,00,000/-
66/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Plaintiff :
Ex.P6 28.10.1997 Plaintiff’s letter to the first defendant enclosing a
demand draft bearing No.025098 dated 28.10.1997 for
Rs.3,00,000/-
Ex.P7 04.11.1997 Plaintiff’s letter to its banker for issuance of D.D. for
Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of first defendant, along with
photocopy of demand draft bearing No.762914 dated
04.11.1997 for Rs.3,50,000/-
Ex.P8 31.07.1997 Certified copy of sale deed in favour of plaintiff for
purchase of first floor flat from Mrs.Sushila Gopinath
Ex.P9 31.07.1997 Certified copy of sale deed in favour of plaintiff for
purchase of the covered car park from Mrs.Sushila
Gopinath
Ex.P10 01.04.1998 Photocopy of Confirmation of Accounts signed by
defendants ( 2pages)
Ex.P11 01.04.2003 Plaintiff’s copy of Confirmation of Accounts sent to
defendants (2 pages)
Ex.P12 21.12.2007 Original Statement of Accounts with bill and vouchers
to for expenses incurred for renovation of suit property
31.08.2008
Ext.P13 1998 – Statement of Accounts with Corporation tax receipts for
2011 tax paid by the plaintiff for the suit property [2/1998-
1999 to 2/2010-2011]
Ext.P14 Statement of accounts with receipts for payment of
Water and Sewerage Tax for suit property
Ext.P15 Dec.1996 – Receipts issued to the plaintiff for the payments received
March by Shree Apartments Association towards maintenance,
2011 repairs and paintings done at the premises at 4A,
Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.
Ext.P16 29.03.2006 Letter issued to the Indian Bank by M/s.Kiara
Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd. (plaintiff’s sister concern)
for issuance of No Lien deposit of Rs.30,00,000/-.
Ext.P17 10.01.2011 Legal notice issued by defendants
67/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Plaintiff :
Ext.P18 06.04.2011 Notice to the plaintiff herein issued by X Court of Small
Causes at Madras in RCOP.No.514/2011 laid by the
defendants herein, for his appearance before Court on
07.7.2011
Ext.P19 16.07.1965 Certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of
Firms, Mumbai
Ext.P20 25.06.2006 Partnership deed of E.H.Turel & Co.,
Ext.P21 29.10.1997 Balance Sheet for the Assessment Year 1997-1998 filed
by the plaintiff before the Income Tax Department
Ex.P22 31.05.1987 Photocopy of certificate of membership issued by the
(P.W.2) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to certify
Nikhil Madhav Sampat of Bombay was admitted as an
Associate of the Institute
Ex.P23 31.05.1987 Photocopy of certificate of membership issued by the
(P.W.2) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to certify
Nikhil Madhav Sampat of Bombay is entitled to practise
as a Chartered Accountant.
Ex.P23 21.11.2012 Original certificate issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-
& operative Bank Ltd., for issuance of Demand Draft for
Ex.P24 Rs.15.0 lakhs in favour of 1st defendant along with the
(P.W.1) Statement of Account of the plaintiff company from
01.12.1996 to 31.12.1996
Ex.P24 22.09.1999 Certificate of Incorporation issued to M/s.Kiara
(P.W.2) Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd by the Registrar of
Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Ex.P25 29.11.2000 Acknowledgement for filing the Income Tax Returns by
(P.W.2) M/s.Kiara Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd., for the
assessment year 2000-2001
Ex.P25 22.11.2012 Certificate issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-operative
& Bank Ltd., certifying issuance of Banker Cheque
Ex.P26 No.403928 of CITI Bank for Rs.2.0 lakhs favouring
(P.W.1) Mr.G.D.Ranka by debiting CA A/c. No.E.H.Turel &
Company on 27.3.1997 and passed through clearance.
68/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013
Plaintiff :
Ex.P26 Income Tax Statement of the plaintiff as on 31.03.2004.
(P.W.2)
Ext.P27 22.11.2012 Certificate issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-operative
(P.W.1) Bank Ltd., certifying issuance of Banker Cheque
No.403927 of CITI Bank for Rs.3.0 lakhs favouring
Mr.G.D.Ranka by debiting CA A/c. No.E.H.Turel &
Company on 27.3.1997 and passed through clearance.
Ext.P27 09.11.2015 Fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon of
(P.W.2) change of name of M/s.KIARA Technologies (India)
Private Limited to M/s.DUERKOPP ADLER – Turel
Technology Private Limited
Ext.P28 21.11.2012 Account statement of the plaintiff issued by Bombay
(P.W.1) Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd for the period 01.03.1997 to
31.03.1997
Ex.P29 22.03.2013 Certificate issued by Union Bank of India certifying
(P.W.1) issuance of pay order for Rs.3.0 lakhs favouring
Mr.G.D.Ranka by debiting from
A/c.No,412301010029024 of Turel Sales Corporation
on 28.10.1997
Ex.P30 22.11.2012 Certificate issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-operative
& Bank Ltd certifying issuance of Banker’s cheque for
Ex.P31 Rs.3.50 lakhs favouring Mr.G.D.Ranka by debiting from
(P.W.1) CA A/c.No,20041 of Turel Sales Corporation on
04.11.1997
Ex.P32 01.04.1996 Rental Agreement entered into between M/s.Ranka
(P.W.1) Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., and E.H.Turel & Co.,
Ex.P33 09.04.1997 Form 16-A of M/s,E.H.Turel and Co
(P.W.1)
Ex.P34 01.04.1996 Rental Agreement entered into between M/s.Ranka’s
(P.W.1) (Madras) Private Limited and M/s.Turel Sales
Corporation
Ex.P35 09.04.1997 Form 16-A of M/s,Turel Sales Corporation
(P.W.1)69/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013Plaintiff :
Ex.P36 24.03.2008 Cheque issued in favour of CMWSSB by M/s.E.H.Turel
(P.W.1) & Company for Rs.30,977/- & also enclosed the
statement provided by CMWSSB for the period 1993 to
2003.
Ex.P37 30.03.2006 Letter addressed by KIARA Technologies to M/s.Indian
(P.W.1) Bank for release of documents and issuance of ‘No
Claim Certificate” against the property at Haddows
Road
Ex.P38 24.06.2008 Photocopy of cheque issued to M/s.Alba Corporation for
(P.W.1) a sum of Rs.28,584/- by M/s.E.H.Turel and Company
vide cheque No.276652
Ex.P39 15.11.2007 Sale executed executed by Mrs.Taradevi Kothari in
(P.W.1) favour of M/s.E.H.Turel and company
Ex.P40 20.03.2002 Original property tax demand card along with the first
(P.W.1) defendant’s handwritten noteEx.P41 06.09.2002 Original property tax demand card along with the first
(P.W.1) defendant’s handwritten note
Ex.P42 Original Water and Sewerage Tax cum Charges Card for
the period 2005-2010 along with original receipts
Ex.P43 Original Receipts issued by CMWSSB to G.D.Ranka dn
Mangla G.Ranka
Ex.P44 20.03.2014 Property Tax collection receipt for the payment made by
G.D.Ranga
Ex.P45 Photocoopy of O.A.No.745 of 1999 filed by Indian Bank
against the defendants’ group before Debts Recovery
Tribunal at Chennai.
Ex.P46 17.04.2002 Reply statement filed by the defendants in O.A.No.577
of 2001 (Originally O.A.No.745 of 1999)
Ex.P47 27.03.2006 Photocopy of conditions of OTS given by Indian Bank to
defendants
Ex.P48 31.03.2006 Letter addressed to the Chief Manager, Indian Bank by70/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013Plaintiff :
the first defendant regarding OTS of GDR Group
Account as concerning the payment made by KIARA
Technologies
Ex.P49 23.05.2006 Letter issued by M/s.KIARA Technologies to the Indian
Bank for renewal of validity of FDR for another 45 days
Ex.P50 13.11.2006 Letter addressed to the Asst. General Manager by first
defendant requiring to provide a full settlement of dues
of OTS
Ex.P51 15.04.2014 Certificate issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-operative
Bank Ltd certifying the authorised signatories of
M/s.E.H.Turel & Co.,
Ex.P52 30.09.2005 Notice issued by the Indian Bank under Sec.13(4)(D) of
the SARFAESI Act
Ex.P53 25.01.2016 Legal notice issued by the plaintiff’s counsel to the
defenants’ counsel under Sec.66 of the Indian Evidence
Act r/w. Order XII Rule 8 CPC
Ex.P54 03.03.2016 Reply notice by the defendant’s counsel to the counsel
for the plaintiff in regard to their letter dated 25.01.2016Ex.P55 Photocoopy of O.A.No.745 of 1999 filed by Indian Bank
against the defendants’ group before Debts Recovery
Tribunal at Chennai.(Ext.P45)
Ex.P56 17.04.2002 Reply statement filed by the defendants in O.A.No.577
of 2001 (Originally O.A.No.745 of 1999) (Ex.P46)
Ex.P57 27.03.2006 Photocopy of conditions of OTS given by Indian Bank to
defendants (Ex.P47)
Ex.P58 Letter addressed to the Asst. General Manager by first
defendant requiring to provide a full settlement of dues
of OTS (Ex.P50 remarked as Ex.P58)71/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 201306.12.2024
72/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 2013N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
C.S.No.304 of 2011
and C.R.P.No.3038 of 201306.12.2024
73/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis