A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by a single judge in favour of actor K. Cowndamani and his family members in connection with a valuable property dispute they had been facing with a builder since 1996.
Justices M. Duraiswamy and T.V. Thamilselvi granted the interim stay following an appeal preferred by Sri Abhirami Foundations, challenging the order passed by the single judge on November 26, 2019 on a civil suit preferred by the actor and his family in 2011.
The Bench ordered the listing of the appeal for final hearing on June 13 and stayed the single judge’s order through which the builder was directed to hand over the possession of 5 grounds and 454 square feet of land on Arcot Road, Kodambakakkam, to the actor.
The judge had also directed the builder to pay damages at the rate of ₹1 lakh per month from August 1, 2008 till the day when the property gets handed over to Mr. Cowndamani, his wife C.M. Shanthi and daughters C.M. Selvi and C.M. Sumitra for not having completed the construction of a commercial complex.
In their pleadings before the court, the actor and his family had claimed to have purchased the land from one Nalini Bai in 1996, and thereafter, entered a construction contract with the builder for constructing a commercial complex spread over 22,700 square feet within 15 months.
The actor had agreed to pay ₹3.58 crore in instalments towards the construction cost and contractor fee. Though ₹1.04 crore was paid between March 1996 and February 1999, the construction was not completed. Further, the builder abandoned the project in 2003 and refused to give possession, the family claimed.
On the other hand, the defendants told the court that it was R. Premanayakam, a partner of Sri Abhirami Foundations, who had obtained the power of attorney from the original landowner after paying the consideration. It was he who had executed a sale deed in favour of the actor and his family.
It was further contended that the defendants had spent over ₹1 crore towards vacating the tenants in the property and obtaining the building plan permission and other approvals for constructing the commercial complex. The agreement with the actor was not just for the land but also for the construction.
The actor only paid ₹1.04 crore out of the agreed amount of ₹3.58 crore because there was an income tax raid at his residence during the relevant period of time, and he was cash strapped during that period because his bank accounts were frozen pursuant to the raid, the defendants claimed.
They also contended that the actor must pay them over ₹40 crore for the loss that they had incurred due to the project not being completed within the stipulated time and the costs that they had incurred to safeguard the property in the last 26 years by a security person.
After hearing both sides, the single judge had held that the defendants could claim interest only if they had completed the project and not otherwise. He also pointed out that an advocate commissioner appointed by the court had assessed that construction worth ₹46.51 lakh alone had been completed.
It meant that the builder had obtained ₹63.01 lakh in excess from the actor and his family, the judge said and held that in any case, the defendants could not be allowed to squat over the property for alleged non-payment of dues and that they could only file a suit for recovery of the dues, if any.
