Madras High Court
Mr.P.Rajaram vs S.Ravindranathan on 7 November, 2022
C.S.No.598 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Civil Suit No.598 of 2019
1.Mr.P.Rajaram
S/o.Late Mr.Ponnusamy
NewNo.10, Old No.5
Saradambal Street
Gokulam Colony
T.Nagar, Chennai-17.
2.Mrs.Bhargavi Reddy
Wife of P.Rajaram
New No.10, Old No.5
Saradambal Street
Gokulam Colony
T.Nagar. Chennai-17. ..Plaintiffs
. Vs.
S.Ravindranathan
Son of Mr.N.Singaravelu
F1, Abdul Regency, 1st Floor No.6
South Mada Street
Srinagar Colony
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ... Defendant
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules
r/w Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC., prays for a Judgment and Decree against the
Defendant:
(a) directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of
Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Only) with interest at the rate of
14% p.a., from the date of filing of the plaint to till the date of realization.
and ;
(b) to direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Ms.E.Komal
for K.N.Shanthi
For Defendant : Ex-parte
JUDGMENT
Heard Ms.Komal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
2.The suit had been filed seeking a judgment and decree against the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only)
together with interest at 14% p.a., from the date of filing of the plaint to till
the date of realisation and also for costs of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
3.Even before examining the averments made in the plaint and the
arguments advanced, it must be stated that the defendant was served on
15.11.2019 and since the defendant had taken a conscious decision not to
appear before the Court, and had also not filed a written statement, my
learned predecessor, on 20.07.2021 had set the defendant ex-parte.
4.The plaintiffs were directed to tender ex-parte evidence.
5.Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff had filed his proof affidavit and had
tendered evidence. It must be stated that the 2nd plaintiff was his own wife.
6.In the plaint, it had been stated that the plaintiffs were originally
tenants under the defendant in the suit property at New No.10, Old No.5,
Saradambal Street, Gokulam Colony, Chennai-600017. The agreement
with respect to tenancy had been entered into by the 2 nd plaintiff. The
monthly rent was Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) initially
and later increased to Rs.65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand only). The
plaintiffs claimed that they had paid an advance amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). The 2 nd plaintiff
was a chronically ill person due to kidney malfunction and needed constant
medical care and attention. The defendant was carrying on business under
the name and style of MPL Motors Private Limited and MPL Automobiles
Private Limited. The defendant had mortgaged the property with ICICI
Bank. The defendant has offered to sell the property to the 2nd plaintiff and
he had informed that the property was the subject matter of mortgage with
ICICI Bank. The defendant promised to release the property from
mortgage. An agreement of sale was entered into between the 2nd plaintiff
and the defendant on 13.04.2016, whereby, the defendant agreed to sell the
property for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees nine
Crores only).
7.Pending the agreement, the defendant also received various
amounts towards discharge of mortgage and in this connection, a total
sum of Rs.8,99,73,500/- (Rupees eight Crores ninety nine lakhs seventy
three thousand five hundred only) had been paid by the plaintiffs towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
discharge of the mortgage. However, the defendant did not show discharge
the mortgage.
8.Thereafter, ICICI Bank proceeded to enforce the mortgage by
filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. They also took
possession of the property and the plaintiffs had to take alternate
accommodation.
9.Thereafter, the defendant had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding accepting and admitting receipt of a sum of
Rs.9,00,00,000/-(Rupees nine Crores only). and seeking time to execute the
sale deed after discharge of the mortgage.
10.But, since the defendant had not taken any steps whatsoever
seeking return of the amount of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees nine Crores
only) paid to the defendant and a further sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees
one Crores only) as compensation for mental agony owing to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
dispossession of the property, the suit had been filed seeking
Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten Crores only) together with interest.
11.As stated, the defendant had remained ex-parte. The plaintiffs
had filed the proof affidavit. PW-1 had marked Ex.P-1 the agreement of
sale dated 13.04.2016. The copy was marked after verifying the original.
The Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.04.2017 was marked as
Ex.P-2 and again a copy was marked after verifying the original.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs had applied for certified copies from the DRT and
had marked the copies of the rental receipts for the period between
10.05.2014 and 16.01.2017 as Ex.P-3. The statement of accounts
reflecting monies transferred to the account of the defendant between May
2016 and June 2016 was marked as Ex.P-4. The copies of treatment
records of the 2nd plaintiff dated 02.04.2019 was marked as Ex.P-5.
12.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs had
been misled by the defendant to retain possession of the property which
was already the subject matter of mortgage and though the plaintiffs had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
advanced monies as reflected under Ex.P-4, the defendant had not
discharged the mortgage, but had rather retained the amounts so forwarded
by the plaintiffs to himself. The plaintiffs also had to suffered the ignominy
of being dispossessed by ICICI Bank and their personal belongings being
removed from the said place. It is for that reason, that compensation is
sought.
13.Insofar as the amount advanced, reliance is placed by the learned
counsel on Ex.P.2, which is the Memorandum of Understanding wherein,
the defendant had agreed and admitted to receiving the sum of
Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees nine Crores only). The fact that plaintiffs were
tenants under the premises is established by Ex.P-3 which were monthly
receipts and which were also filed before the DRT by the plaintiffs. The 2 nd
plaintiff being a chronically ill patient, had to suffer owing such
dispossession and in that regard had filed Ex.P-5, the details of medical
reports.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
14.In view of the evidence produced particularly also since the
defendant had, though served, taken a decision, not to appear before Court,
I hold that the plaintiffs that plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of the
reliefs as prayed. However, interest can be granted at 12% p.a., on
Rs.9,00,00,000/-(Rupees nine Crores only) which would be the amount
actually advanced. On the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
(Rupees one Crore only), there cannot be any interest stated .
15.The suit is partly decreed for a sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees
nine Crores only) together interest at 12% p.a., from the date of
presentation of the plaint till the date of realization and for a further
consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Crore only) which will
not carrying any interest and also costs for the suit.
07.11.2022
kp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
List of Witness examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
PW.1 - Mr.P.Rajaram Reddy
List of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
Sl. Nos. Exhibits Description of documents
1. Ex.P.1 Is the photocopy of agreement for sale dated 13.04.2016
(verified with original and returned)
2. Ex.P.2 Is the photocopy of Memorandum of Understanding dated
20.04.2017 (verified with original and returned)
3. Ex.P.3 Is the certified copy of the rental receipts dated 10.05.2014 to
16.01.2017.
4. Ex.P-4 Is the certified copy of the statement of accounts from May
2016 to June 2016.
5. Ex.P.5 Is the certified copy of the treatment records of the 2 nd
plaintiff dated 02.04.2019.
List of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendant:- Nil
07.11.2022
kp
Internet: Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To
The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
Original Side,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.598 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.,
KP
Civil Suit No.598 of 2019
07.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
