Appeal No.2 of 2024, Elis Francis v M/s. Adityaram Properties Private Limited

What the case concerned

Appeal No.2 of 2024 concerned money paid for residential plot No.295 in a project of M/s. Adityaram Properties Private Limited. Elis Francis sought a refund of Rs.5,00,000 with interest at 18%, compensation of Rs.5,00,000 and legal expenses of Rs.50,000.

The appellant stated that her late husband had booked the plot and paid Rs.5,00,000. She said that she approached the developer for a refund after his death and sent a legal notice on 3 August 2021.

Developer's response

M/s. Adityaram Properties Private Limited stated that the agreement of sale dated 26 April 2021 was jointly made in favour of Mr. Saravanan and Mrs. Shylaja. The developer said the total amount received was Rs.6,00,000, including Rs.1,00,000 paid by Mrs. Shylaja.

The developer stated that it refunded:

• Rs.2,00,000 to Mrs. Shylaja on 10 December 2021.
• Rs.4,00,000 to Mrs. Shylaja on 6 May 2022.

The Single Member of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed the original complaint after finding that the agreement was jointly entered into by Mr. Saravanan and Mrs. Shylaja and that Mrs. Shylaja's payment was supported by her cheque.

Tribunal's findings

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined the sale agreement and found that Elis Francis was not a party to it. The agreement named Mr. Saravanan and Mrs. Shylaja, and the cheque for Rs.1,00,000 had been issued by Mrs. Shylaja.

The Tribunal also found that naming Elis Francis as a nominee in Mr. Saravanan's bank account did not give her a right to obtain the refund paid under the sale agreement. Because Mrs. Shylaja was a party to the agreement and remained available, the developer had correctly refunded Rs.6,00,000 to her.

Outcome and practical relevance

Appeal No.2 of 2024 was dismissed because the Tribunal found no ground to interfere with the Single Member's decision. The Tribunal did not decide whether Elis Francis or Mrs. Shylaja was the wife of the deceased, stating that it was not the forum for deciding that marital relationship.

For buyers and claimants, the decision shows that the names in the sale agreement, proof of payment and the identity of the person receiving a refund were central to the result. A bank nominee was not treated as automatically entitled to money paid under an agreement to which the nominee was not a party.