Agreement To Sell Cheating
Category : Uncategorized
2. The three complainants, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma, Manoranjan Prasad Verma and Rajiv Ranjan Prasad Verma are the sons of the late Shri Kashi Nath Prasad Verma. You have three other brothers who are not directly involved in this proceeding. The late Kashi Nath Prasad Verma was the owner of Khasra No. 213, plot No. 1172, in Village Srinagar, Siwan police station. After his death, his six sons managed to obtain the property. Applicant 1 is a neurosurgeon at Patna; Complainant 2 is the Director of Pathar Jliora Tea Gardens in Jalpaiguri and Complainant 3 is a retired marketing director of Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., Delhi. Respondent No. 2, Manish Prasad Singh, a lawyer, is the secretary of Kanishka Sahkari Grih Nirman Nirman Samiti Limited, Sewan , a cooperative that deals with the purchase of land from different people and after having developed it and divided it into small pieces that sell the land to different clients. The complainants agreed to sell the land in the village of Srinagar for a consideration of 16,00,000 lots to respondent No. 2. The respondent paid the applicants 11.00,000 hives through projects of 7.12.92 drawn in his favour.
The applicants proceeded with a registered sale of the land for the benefit of the company. It was in the complainant`s case that, at the request of respondent No. 2, two of the complainant`s other brothers signed the deed of sale as witnesses. As part of a new conservatory custody, the applicants executed a separate declaration of compensation on the same day in which they agreed to compensate the company for any losses incurred by the company as a result of possible objections that a co-owner might raise in the future against the transfer of the land. The applicants argue that they surrendered ownership of the land to the association on the same day. Another brother of the complainant, Priya Ranjan Prasad Verma, also carried out a deed of sale in favour of the company that alienated its part of the country. In order to avoid further complications, the complainant proposed to the accused either to keep for himself the share of the 1/6th part of the land and to execute supporting documents of sale for only five units of land, or to reimburse the complainant for the money paid to him as advance compensation. But the accused do not agree with the complainant`s proposals that they will execute an agreement that, in the event of future trouble with the performing arts society, that is, the accused, he will be obliged to compensate the company. Thus, the complainant, who saw no alternative, accepted the accused`s proposal to carry out acts of sale relating to entire land, and the consenting acts were carried out accordingly. The first and most important ingredient of a criminal trust breach offence is to show that a property has been entrusted to the accused or that he has dishonestly diverted control of that property or transformed it for its own use, and the word fraud has been defined in accordance with Section 415 of the CPI, which provides that a person who, by deceiving a person, fraudulently or dishonestly incites the deceit to provide or accept that a person retains property or the person who has been so deceived, deliberately incites him to do or refrain from doing or refraining from doing or refraining from doing so or refraining from doing so if he has not been so deceived.
, and that the act or omission could harm or risk harming that person. , mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat.