Here's a breakdown of the court's decision on a property dispute involving Padmashri and C. Ganesan in Vellore. Let's dive into the details and see what happened!
Back on April 29, 2016, Padmashri agreed to buy a property from C. Ganesan for ₹5 lakhs. She paid ₹4 lakhs upfront, with the remaining ₹1 lakh due in 11 months. Padmashri claimed she was ready to pay, but C. Ganesan didn't follow through.
C. Ganesan argued the deal wasn't for a sale but was security for a loan. He said Padmashri refused to settle the loan when he tried to pay it back. He also claimed the property's actual value was ₹20 lakhs, not ₹5 lakhs.
The trial court found that Padmashri failed to prove she was ready to complete the deal within the 11-month period. They decided not to enforce the sale but ordered C. Ganesan to refund the ₹4 lakhs with interest.
Padmashri appealed this decision, but the appellate court in Vellore agreed with the trial court. They pointed out differences in her evidence and confirmed the agreement was likely a loan security.
On December 3, 2024, Justice T.V. Thamilselvi dismissed Padmashri's final appeal. The court ordered C. Ganesan to refund the money with interest, but Padmashri lost the chance to buy the property.
In the end, the courts decided that Padmashri wasn't entitled to the property but ensured she got her advance payment back. This case highlights the importance of clear agreements and timely actions in property deals.
