Similarly, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the building in Triplicane, referred in the petition also belongs to the respondent. But it is the specific case of the respondent that the property is the company's property and he is only a minor share holder in the property. Further, it is also the contention of the respondent that a suit has also been filed for declaration for allotting shares in favour of the plaintiff by the other directors. Ex. P.7 plaint makes it clear that infact the suit is filed by the sister of the respondent for various reliefs and also for declaration with regard to the shares transferred in the name of the respondent herein. Once, the property is said to be company's property, the share holders cannot be the owner of the property. They can never be considered as a co-owner of the property. Only the company is the owner of the property. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent is the co-owner of the property cannot be countenanced.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos. 204, 205 of 2013, M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
Decided On: 26.02.2019
Hateemy Sales Corporation Vs. R. Sudhakar
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Citation: 2019(1) RCR (Rent) 475
