Chengalpet written statement

1. The address of the 1st Defendant for the service of all notices and process is that of his counsel
2. The Defendant denies the various allegations made by the Plaintiffs in the plaint except those

that are expressly admitted herein and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof regarding the rest of the

allegations.
3. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs is a bogus litigation, false, vexations, meritless and liable to be

dismissed.
4. The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit now filed by the Plaintiffs is

flagrant misuse of law and abuse the process of law and court. Therefore it is liable to be

dismissed is limini.
5. The averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 are true that the suit property i.e., item 1 of suit

schedule property originally owned by one Renuka, the 24 th Defendant and item 2 of suit

schedule property originally owned by one Sowthamani the 25 TH Defendant.

6. The averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 that the Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 3 are the absolute owners

of the suit scheduled properties are false and thus an illegal attempt by the Plaintiffs against the

1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant is hereby specifically denying the same.
7. The averments made in paragraph 7, 8 , 9 & 10 are absolutely false that the Plaintiffs entered into

a sale agreement with the Defendants 24 and 25 in respect of the suit scheduled item property 1

and 2 for a sale consideration and paid for them on installments. It is also false to state that the

Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 3 have become the absolute owners of the suit scheduled properties item no.1 & 2,

by paying the said sale consideration and obtaining JUST power of attorney from defendants 24 &

25.
8. The averments made in paragraph 11 are blatant lies, as it was the 1 st DEFENDANT, who was

misled by the PLAINTIFFS, into believing that they are the title holders of the suit schedule properties

where as the plaintiffs had no hold on the suit schedule property item 2 throughout the period of

negotiations until the 1st DEFENDANT found out through his own sources. Hence the 1 st DEFENDANT

herein, demanded the truth through documents whereupon, the plaintiffs after much of dodging the
 1st DEFENDANT, ARRANGED A MEETING WITH defendants 24 & 25. It is evident from the fact that

only the Plaintiffs had the criminal intention to cheat the 1 st DEFENDANT through false claims to be

the absolute title holders of the suit schedule properties.,

9. The averments made in paragraph 12 are false in total, as only the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25 were the

absolute owners of the property as on the date of execution of the power of attorney 261/2010,

dated 11-03-2010. Again, this goes clearly against the averments made by the plaintiffs in para no. 8,

9 & 10, claiming that they were the absolute owners from the date 07-03-2008. If the averments

made by the plaintiff that they were the absolute owners from 07-03-2008, How did they stand

witness to the power of attorney deed executed by the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, to and in favor of 1 st

DEFENDANT on the date of 11-03-2010 ?. Therefore it is crystal clear that the actual transaction and

the dealings were with DEFENDANTS 24 & 25 and that the 1 st DEFENDANT has been victimized by the

PLAINTIFFS by their claims as if they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
10. The averments made in paragraph 13 are highly contradictory by themselves as it is clearly stated

in the sale agreement that the total consideration of the suit schedule property has been arrived on

the basic price of Rupees 1500/ sq.ft. and the 1 st DEFENDANT has no objections to that. It is quiet

evident from the fact that the power of attorney had been executed by the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25,

purely as per the terms of the sale agreement as agreed by the plaintiffs, through their averments in

para 13. The plaintiffs are trying to mislead everyone by confusing the acts of all the involved

persons in the entire transactions, including the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25.

11. The averments made in paragraph 14 are absolutely false and incorrect as it is falsely claimed by

the plaintiffs with highlighted words as if there is a separate clause in the power of attorney that the

1st DEFENDANT should not execute any sale deed in favour of any third parties while there is no such

reference anywhere in the power of attorney. By claiming the genuine power of attorney executed

by the genuine principals/ DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, and being witnessed by the PLAINTIFFS themselves

as “ alleged power of attorney”, it is quite evident and clear that the very thought of filing this suit

has been out of highly malafied and perverted intentions of the plaintiffs.
12. The averments made in paragraph 15 are a clear statement of the clumsiness of the plaintiffs in

their desperate attempt to hide their fraudulent and cheating intentions, just by spraying undignified

words and phrases. It is quiet evident from the fact that the plaintiffs claim it as an act of cheating

on the execution of sale deeds in favor of DEFENDANTS 2 & 3 herein, vide documents 1396/2010

dated 11-03-2010 and 1610/2010 dated 11-03-2010, in which the plaintiffs themselves were part of

the signatories. The claim that the plaintiffs are innocent to the extent of not knowing what they are

doing is a bit over stated and liable to be dismissed as an act of skirmish. Who are the plaintiffs

trying to mislead and cheat? Where is the act of fraud committed by the 1 st DEFENDANT in

permitting a portion of the land being sold to a third party with receipt of the full payment to the

principals/ defendants 24 & 25, in the presence and participation of the plaintiffs ?
13. The averments made in paragraph 16 are highly fabricated and are clear witness to the cheating

and criminal intention of the plaintiffs. There was neither any request from the 1 st DEFENDANT for

any additional time nor was there any discussion about the hiking of the price. The Plaintiffs, with

determined motivations, have cooked up the story and are chasing the non-existent, so called

“additional agreement” . Where is the “ additional agreement” ? The 1 st DEFENDANT categorically

states that it is the very own imagination of the plaintiffs and has no relevance to any of the

transactions.
14. The averments made in paragraph 17 by the plaintiffs are the highlight of the entire scheme of

things. By stating that they did not know anything for more than two years of what was happening

and that too after completion of two floors of construction, being just a walk able distance from the

suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are really trying to act smart on their way to mislead and cheat

everyone. While the fact remains and is clearly stated by the 1 st DEFENDANT that the plaintiffs had

the clear knowledge of every happening in the suit schedule property including all the listed UDS

registration of sale deeds in favor of defendants 4 to 23 herein, listed in paras 18 to 22 and have

often joined the celebrations and functions conducted by the 1 st defendant, on various stages of the
project. It is only the greediness of the plaintiffs at later stages, to come up with many afterthoughts

to cook up a whole different story and paint the 1 st defendant black with various imaginary and false

claims.
The true facts are as follows:-
The 1st Defendant agreed to purchase the suit schedule properties item No.1 and 2 from the

Defendants 24 and 25. On that basis, the 1 st Defendant and Defendants 24 and 25 entered into

an agreement of sale for purchase of the suit scheduled properties for a sale consideration of

Rs.2 Crores and 10 lakhs . And also the Defendants 24 and 25 executed Registered General

Power of Attorney in favour of the 1 st Defendant on 11.03 2010. In the said Power of Attorney

the Plaintiffs have signed as witnesses.

The above said legal transaction has taken place between the 1 st Defendant and the Defendants

24 and 25, in the presence of Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 3. The 1 st Defendant has already paid Rupees 1

crore and 74 Lakhs out of the balance sale consideration to the Defendants 24 and 25. In fact, it

was the Plaintiffs who have, under the instructions of Defendants 24 and 25, received the sale

consideration from the 1st defendant on behalf of the Defendants 24 and 25 . In other words,

The 1st Defendant has paid the above mentioned sale consideration to the Plaintiffs only under

the instruction of the Defendants 24 and 25.

In fact, the POWER OF ATTORNEY deed 261/2010, DATED 11-03-2010, was executed to and in

favour of the 1st DEFENDANT, only after cancelling the PLAINTIFFS’ earlier power deed by ORAL

notice to the PLAINTIFFS, by the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25. The PLAINTIFFS have also signed as

witness to the POWER OF ATTORNEY deed 261/2010, DATED 11-03-2010, executed in favour of

the 1st DEFENDANT by the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25.

On the same day, i.e., 11-03-2010, the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, sold 2700 sq.ft of land comprised

in the scheduled item properties 1 & 2, to the DEFENDANTS 2 & 3, with the consent of the 1 st

DEFENDANT, for a sum of Rs.44 Lakhs and the same amount was agreed to be adjusted against

the total sale consideration for the suit scheduled property items 1 & 2, due to be paid by the

1ST DEFENDANT to DEFENDANTS 24 & 25.

The 1st DEFENDANT has so far paid a total sum of Rupees 1 crore AND 74 lakhs to the

DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, through the PLAINTIFFS and for the balance amount, the DEFENDANTS

24 & 25, have agreed to buy the constructed apartment from the 1 st DEFENDANT.
In the meantime, the PLAINTIFFS demanded a share in the constructed portion, for the balance

sale consideration in their favor instead of the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, without the knowledge of

the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, falsely claiming they still enjoy the earlier power deed. As the 1 st

DEFENDANT did not agree to such a proposal, the PLAINTIFFS herein got aggrieved and tried to

dispossess the 1st DEFENDANT from the suit scheduled property by engaging some rowdy

elements and G oondas and also prevented the 1st DEFENDANT from carrying on with the

construction activities.
It is in these circumstances, that the 1 st DEFENDANT preferred police complaint and also filed a

suit in O.S. No.220 of 2012, before the Hon’ble Sub-Ordinate Judge, Tambaram and obtained an

AD-INTERIM injunction against the PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS 24 & 25 herein.

Not being able to withstand the 1 st DEFENDANTS legal actions, the PLAINTIFFS preferred a false

complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Egmore against the 1 st DEFENDANT by suppressing

the entire facts. Therefor the 1st DEFENDANT has filed a petition for quashing the FIR in Crl.O.P.

No.------ of--------, before the Hon’ble High court of Madras and the same is pending.
While the POWER OF ATTORNEY deed, 261/2010, dated 11-03-2010, executed by the

DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, to and in favor of the 1 st DEFENDANT herein upon the receipt of part

payment of the sale consideration on the same date, is coupled with interest. The 1 st

DEFENDANT was put in possession of the suit schedule property item 1 & 2, by virtue of the sale

agreement and the Power of attorney deed for putting up construction and selling the same to

the prospective buyers.

The 1st DEFENDANT humbly submits that, pursuant to the execution of power of attorney, the 1 st

DEFENDANT obtained all the necessary building plan approvals from the relevant authorities for

the construction of apartments. Also, the 1 st DEFENDANT executed sale deeds for the UDS of the
suit schedule property ( except the property sold by the DEFENDANTS 24 & 25, to the

DEFENDANTS 2 & 3 ) in favor of DEFENDANTS 4 to 23.

The 1st DEFENDANT has spent a huge amount of about 2 crores for the construction activities

alone. The purchasers of the flats, i.e., DEFENDANTS 4 to 23, have bought the UDS of the suit

property by availing loans through various nationalized banks, who will disperse the loan amount

in various stages of completion on the basis of stage wise completion of the flats.
Even though the 1st DEFENDANT has spent a huge amount of money in the purchase of the suit

property and the construction, as per the valid agreement and authority, he is not in a postion to

receive the balance amount from the respective banks and complete the project. Thereby , the

1st DEFENDANT has incurred a huge loss in business and his reputation and also suffering from

mental agony.