Tamil film actor K. Cowndamani has won yet another legal battle before the Madras High Court in a property dispute that he and his family members had been having with Sri Abhirami Foundations since 1998. The court on Thursday, March 14, 2024 dismissed an original side appeal filed by the building firm in 2021 against a single judge’s 2019 order.
A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy on November 26, 2019 directing the firm to hand over to the actor the possession of 5 grounds and 454 square feet of land on Arcot Road at Kodambakakkam in Chennai.
Decreeing a civil suit preferred by the actor and his family in 2011, Justice Ramasamy 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.
According to the actor, he and his family members had purchased the land in question from one Nalini Bai in 1996, and thereafter, entered into a construction agreement with the appellant for building a commercial complex spread over 22,700 square feet within 15 months.
As per the contract, the actor had 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 carried out commensurately and the builder abandoned the project in 2003, the family claimed.
However, the firm told the court R. Premanayakam, a partner of Sri Abhirami Foundations, 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.
The firm also claimed to have 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, it said.
The actor only paid ₹1.04 crore out of the agreed amount of ₹3.58 crore because there was an income tax search 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 search, the builder added.
It was also contended that the actor must pay over ₹40 crore for the loss that the builder had incurred due to the project not being completed within the stipulated time and the costs that it had incurred to safeguard the property for the last 26 years by deploying a security guard.
After hearing both sides, Justice Ramasamy had held the firm could claim interest only if it had completed the project and not otherwise. He pointed out that an advocate commissioner appointed by the court had assessed that construction worth only ₹46.51 lakh alone had been completed.
Therefore, it was clear 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 firm could not be allowed to squat over the property for alleged non-payment of dues and that it could only file a suit for recovery of the dues, if any.
