Builder purchased property through false mou

 

(Querist)
06 March 2019

Respected Experts,
A partnership firm consisting of 4 partners having share as 30:30:30:10 holds 35% share in a land. A builder/ developer purchased 30:30:30 from the partners via registered agreement in 2014 and 10% share from the divorced wife of the partner via notarized MOU without the knowledge and consent of the partner in 2013.

The said MOU was executed on the basis of 2 fake Power of Attorney's of the partner. When the partner was alarmed, he filed WP in the High Court of Bombay in 2015 against the builder & others on his and firms behalf. As the matter did not come up for hearing due to long dates, the developer went ahead and appointed a sub-developer to develop the land in 2016.The partner expired in 2017.

The developer produced only the agreement of 90% share holder with the MCGM to get his file approved and not the 10% MOU . The sub-developer constructed 22 floors and is waiting for OC from the MCGM.

The last wife of the partner is still alive, she filed CS in the HC to become a party in the said WP and also filed complaints with the Municipal Corp. not to issue Occupation Certificate by showcasing how the fraud has been committed by the builder/developer and the divorced wife of the partner. .

Any judgments will be really helpful.

1.The builder completed the purchase of the land on false and fabricated MOU of a divorced wife, Is the sale/ deal complete with the partners and valid in the eyes of law?
2. What legal recourse is available with the financially deprived last wife and widow of the partner.?
3. The Advocate of the deceased partner states that nothing lies in WP, you will have to withdraw and file a suit?
4. Is there anyway to stop the developers file from further movement?
5. WP is still pending in the HC. Should the last surviving wife amend the WP and bring the fraud committed by the divorced lad and the developers?

Experts, please help and guide....God Bless

M. R. Shaikh


KISHAN DUTT RETD JUDGE (Expert)
07 March 2019

Dear Sir,
Your issue involves both civil and criminal actions to be taken. It appears you have not initiated any criminal action which is more effective then civil action. In the meanwhile take injunction order against the builder not to meddle with the subject matter/property.

Please mark “LIKE” if satisfied by my answer.

Bilal U Gani (Expert)
07 March 2019

You must instantly get a stay order restraining the builder from any activities on the disputed property.You should also file a strong criminal complaint,the other side would come for negotiations under pressure.

Mohammed Rizwan Shaikh (Querist)
07 March 2019

Many many thanks to the learned experts....Actually prior to the death of the partner the builder was about to negotiate with the last wife but after the death he turned away his face. Should I file u/s 38 Specific Relief Act....pls advice experts.or is there any way I can do something in the WP which is already filed
GOD Bless
Regards,
M. R. Shaikh


P. Venu (Expert)
07 March 2019

WP - who is the respondent? What are the reliefs sought? Anyhow, facts are not that simple to suggest off-hand solution without perusing the documents and ascertaining the documents.

Mohammed Rizwan Shaikh (Querist)
07 March 2019

Venu Sir Namaste,
In the said WP, the the builder and MCGM are the Respondents. The relief sought were to earmark the land as per the Agreement and Consent Terms executed by the parties. As the Chamber Summons has been filed, can the last wife/widow file an application to amend and bring the fraud committed before the Court.
Regards,
M. R. Shaikh

Dr J C Vashista (Expert)
08 March 2019

The issue is multi faced which require extensive appreciation of documents involved and judicial file.

P. Venu (Expert)
08 March 2019

How is MCGM involved? What is the mandamus sought against them? In my opinion, no WP lies on the facts, as stated. It is better, in my understanding, if other remedies are sought.

Mohammed Rizwan Shaikh (Querist)
08 March 2019

Namaste Venu Sir,
All the fake and forged signed letters were submitted with the MCGM by the architect of the builder/developer informing them that the complaints of the partner has been withdrawn, moreover MCGM should be directed not to pass any plans and direct them to ear-mark the land which false in the share of the firm.
Regards,
M. R. Shaikh



You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :









×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu