1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 712 of 2019
1. M/s. G.R.Thanga Maligai Firm
rep. by its Partner
G.R.Ananthapadmanabhan
No.136, Usman Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
2. Mr.G.R.Ananthapadmanabhan
3. Mr.G.R.Radhakrishnan ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
Mr.S.Ravishankar ...Defendant
Prayer : Petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule
1 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree by
a) directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.3,20,88,134/- together
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.2,36,00,000/- from the date
of plaint till realisation;
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For plaintiffs : Dr. S.S.Swaminathan
ORDER
Heard Dr. S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
2. The suit had been filed seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.3,20,88,134/- together with interest at 12% p.a., on Rs.2,36,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation and also for costs.
3. The first plaintiff is a partnership firm. The copy of the registration of the Firm has been filed as Ex.P-9. The second and third plaintiffs are the partners of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs had occassion, to purchase three separate properties totally measuring 3.66 acres at D.No. 333, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District. The sale deeds were all dated 29.03.2012 and registered as document Nos. 2143/2012, 2144/12 and 2145/12 before the Sub Registrar Office at Neelangarai. The total sale consideration was Rs.25,03,07,600/-. After the purchase, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that offering the property as collateral security, the defendant had obtained substantial loan from IDBI Bank. The plaintiffs were therefore sought to proceeded by the bank https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 authorities. But however, the liability was on the defendant to clear the dues. To clear the dues, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,36,00,000/- from the plaintiff. As security for such borrowal, the defendant executed a cheque and also a promissory note on 20.04.2013. He also executed a letter on confirmation on 20.04.2013. The promissory note had been marked as Ex.P- 3 and the Letter of Confirmation had been marked as Ex.P-4. With the amount advanced by the plaintiffs, the defendant discharged the subsisting loan on the property with IDBI Bank and the document in that regard was marked as Ex.P-2, which is also dated 20.04.2013. The defendant also agreed to return back the money and had executed a memorandum of understanding also on 20.04.2013 and as security had also handed title deeds of further properties.
4. The defendant before the institution of the suit, had repaid substantial portions of the money amouting to about Rs.10/- crores out of hte original borrowal of Rs.12.36 crores. But there still was a due of Rs.2,36,00,000/-. The suit has been laid for that amount and for the accrued interest of 12% p.a. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
5. It is stated by the learned counsel that though the contractual rate of interest was higher, the plaintiffs had restricted the interest to 12% p.a. The total suit claim was for Rs.3,20,88,134/-. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 17.06.2017 which was marked as Ex.P-6 and acknowledgment card for the same was marked as Ex.P-7. The defendant also received the notice but had not replied to the same.
6. During the pendency of the suit, summons was issued to the defendant but he had taken a concious decision not to appear before the Court.
7. The learned Master had recorded service of the suit summons and had closed the process by an order dated 13.09.2021.
8. The plaintiffs were invited to adduce evidence. While marking the said documents, the oral evidence of D.Prabhakar, Senior Manager – Estates was recorded. The letter authorising the witness to adduce evidence was marked as Ex.P-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
9. Dr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs pointed out the averments made in the plaint which had not been controverted by the defendant and that out of the original borrowal of Rs.12,36,00,000/-, the defendant had actually paid Rs.10/- crores. This statement establishes atleast two facts, namely, (1) the indebtedness to the plaintiff; (2) the acknowledgement of such indebtedness by the defendant who repaid part of the amount due.
10. It is to establish the further fact, namely that the defendant had to pay back the balance amount, the suit had been instituted.
11. In view of the oral and documentary evidence which stands uncontroverted, decree follows.
12. The suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.
Vsg 14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
C.S.No. 712 of 2019
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis