Madras High Court
S.Shenbagaraman vs J.Johnson Rajasekaran on 23 April, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date :23.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
A.S(MD).No.199 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7118 of 2020
1.S.Shenbagaraman
2.S.Sudalai Muthu
3.S.Rathnakumari
4.S.Sivasubramanian
5.S.Mariappan
6.S.Eswaramoorthy
7.S.Sabari .. Appellants
Vs.
1.J.Johnson Rajasekaran
R.Sree Rengathammal (Died)
2.S.Indra .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and decree made in O.S.No.44 of
2016, dated 30.07.2020 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track
Court), Tenkasi, allow the above appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kumar
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated
30.07.2020 made in O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District
Court(FTC), Tenkasi. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 7 in the suit. The
suit was filed by the first respondent herein namely Johnson Rajasekaran. The
suit was instituted on the basis of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 registered mortgage deeds.
2.The case of the plaintiff was that the mortgagor Rengathammal is
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She had borrowed a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.07.2003 and executed Ex.A1-mortgage deed. She then
borrowed a further sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on 01.08.2003 and executed Ex.A2-
mortgage deed. A further sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed on 16.10.2006.
Ex.A3 was executed. All the three mortgage deeds were duly registered. While
so, on 12.12.2011, the suit property was purchased by the appellants by a
registered sale deed Ex.A4. The plaintiff issued Ex.A5-notice dated 19.12.2016
calling upon the defendants to clear the mortgage debt. The third defendant
sent a reply dated 24.02.2016 (Ex.A8). Since the subsequent purchasers did not
come forward to clear the mortgage debt, the said suit came to be instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
3.The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-
1.Whether the suit mortgage deeds are true and valid?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mortgage preliminary
decree for sale as prayed?
3.To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
4.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to
Ex.A8. The seventh defendant-Sabari examined himself as D.W.1. No
documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. During the
pendency of the suit proceedings, some compromise talks took place between
the parties. It appears that the plaintiff had agreed to receive a sum of
Rs.18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all his claims. It is further
stated that in terms of the said compromise, the appellant herein paid a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the plaintiff. They were to pay the balance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- within two months thereafter. It appears that there was some
delay on the part of the appellants in paying the balance amount within the
stipulated time. When eventually the appellants came to pay the said amount,
the plaintiff refused to receive the same. In these circumstances, the Court
below passed the impugned Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2020 giving
credit to the aforesaid payment of Rs.8,00,000/-. The decree was passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.12,52,182/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum with effect from 13.02.2018 till the date of decree and further
interest at the rate of 6% on the said sum. Questioning the same, this appeal
has been filed.
5.Though notice has been served on the plaintiff and his name is also
printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on his behalf. The only
question that arises for my determination is as to whether the Court below was
right in directing the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
the sum of Rs.12,52,182/-, when admittedly the principal mortgage debt was
only Rs.8,75,000/-. The answer this point for determination lies in Section 34
of C.P.C. Section 34 of C.P.C., reads as follows:-
“34. Interest (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the
Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems
reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to
the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum
for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate
not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such
principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such
earlier date as the Court thinks fit.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
6.Therefore, the Court below could have directed the defendants to
pay interest not exceeding 6% per annum only on the principal sum. The
principal sum in this case is admittedly Rs.8,75,000/-. The amount of
Rs.12,52,182/- mentioned in the decree includes interest component also.
Therefore, the impugned Judgment and decree is modified. The appellants are
directed to pay the sum of Rs.12,52,182/- together with interest at the rate of
6% per annum on the said sum of Rs.8,75,000/- with effect from 13.02.2018 till
30.07.2020 and with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
Rs.8,75,000/- from the date of decree till the date of payment. The impugned
Judgment is modified in the above terms. The Appeal Suit is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rmi
To
1.The Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.199 of 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
A.S(MD).No.199 of 2020
23.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
