the petitioner and her late husband. Subsequently, Mr.C.M. Ramesh reaiised his mistake and apologised to the petitioner. He informed the petitioner that respondent No.2 u,ould build a health centre at Plot No. 1323A for which an entrance from the northeastern side of petitioner's residential propertlr u'as required. After much persuasion petitioner entered into a memorandum of understanding with respondent No.2, represented by Mr.C.M.Ramesh as its Chairman and Managing Drrector, on 22.O1.2O11. However, it is stated that respondent No.2 violated the terms of memorandum of understanding for which petitioner caxcelled the same on 19.05.2011. On 13.06.2017 after intimating the Society, petitioner started constructing the wal1s demolished by respondent No.2. At that stage Mr.C.M.Ramesh confronted the petitioner and threatened that he u,ould go to any extent if the petitioner continued to refuse sale of the eastern part of the residential building to him. In his desperation to acquire the eastern part of petitioner's residential propert_v b1' an-v means, respondent No.2, at the instigation of Mr,C.M.Ramesh, filed a number of civil suits and writ petition against the petitioner. 1S Basic allegation in the above litigations is that petitioner encroaching road No.67 as well as the plot ol respondent No.2
