Madras High Court
The Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga ... vs K.Murugesan (Died) on 10 July, 2023
A.S.No.164 of 2014
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
A.S.No.164 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2014 & 1 of 2015
The Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Ltd.,
Represented by its Director-Trustee,
No.47, Vellala Street,
Purasawalkam, Chennai – 600 007. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Murugesan (Died)
2.M.Muthulakshmi
3.M/s.Balajee & Company,
Auctioneers and Estate Agents,
1st Floor, No.160, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
4.M.Anand
5.M.Shanthi
6.M.Sumathi
7.M.Raj Mohan
(R4 to R7 are brought on record as LR's of deceased1st respondent
viz., K.Murugesan vide order of Court dated 03.11.2022 made in
CMP.Nos.18234, 18235 & 18237/2022 in A.S.No.164/2021)
...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w. Section 96 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 of the learned V-
Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai in O.S.No.5928 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghupathi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Thiagarajan &
M/s.Vasudha Thiagaraja for R2, R4 to R7
R3-served-No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The defendant is on appeal, aggrieved by a decree for redemption
granted by the Trial Court. A suit was laid by the respondents 1 and 2
seeking redemption of mortgage that was created on 28.06.1993 for a loan
of Rs.85,000/-. There was another loan granted on 11.07.1995 for
Rs.1,25,000/-. The plaintiffs sought for redemption valuing the amount that
is due and payable under the both loan account is Rs.4,62,099.38/-.
2.The suit was resisted contending that the 1st defendant
mortgagee had taken steps to auction the property and total amount due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
under the mortages comes to Rs.12,39,982/-. The Trial Court, afer framing
necessary issues concluded that the 1st defendant mortgagee would be
entitled to a sum of Rs.4,62,099/- together with interest at 12% per annum
on Rs.1,88,882/- from the date of suit i.e., 21.03.2006 till the date of
realisation.
3.The only grievance that is projected by the learned counsel for
the appellant is the rate of interest that has been granted after the suit.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in The Purasawakum Permanent
Fund Ltd., Rep. By its Administrative Director Vs. G.Kamalam and
Others made in S.A.No.549 of 2015, Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel for
the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant would be entitled
to 15% interest per annum after the decree. He would also point out that the
appellant, being a benefit fund surviving on the interest income and it has to
pay the interest to the depositors also. Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel for
the appellant would also point out that the judgment of this Court made in
S.A.No.549 of 2015 dated 26.09.2018 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
4.Contending contra, Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel
for the respondents would submit that the Trial Court had given a valid
reasons for granting 12% interest and the discretion to grant interest is
vested in the Trial Court under Section 34 of C.P.C. The said discretion need
not be interfered with in the appeal. We have considered the rival
submissions.
5.No doubt, a discretion is vested in the Court to grant pedente lite
interest but, such discretion is to be exercised judiciously. In a case of this
nature, where the mortgagee is a financial institution, which seek deposits
from public at a rate of interest and lends it to a needy at a little higher
interest cannot be treated on par with a regular money lender. Therefore, we
are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by this Court in S.A.No.549
of 2015, on the reasonings therein to grant interest at 15%. We therefore,
conclude that the appellant would be entitled to interest at 15% interest from
the date of suit till date of realisation on a sum of Rs.1,88,882/-. To that
extent, the appeal is allowed. But, the controversy does not end there.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
6.It is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 had offered the sum of
Rs.6,44,435/-, being the amount due as per the decree of the Trial Court on
15.04.2014 and the same has been refused to be received by the appellant.
There upon, they had also filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2014, seeking
a direction to deposit the said sum into Court. Unfortunately, the said
application was not ordered. Therefore, we are have to decide what would
be the effect of the conduct of the appellant in refusing to receive the money
that was in discharge of the decree amount.
7.Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel would contend that the refusal
to receive was because of the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the
appellants shall not be affected by such refusal. We find it difficult to agree
with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. A judgment
debtor is entitled to offer the sum due under the decree to the decree holder
at any point of time and the decree holder is bound to accept it. If the decree
holder refuses to accept payment, the decree holder will have to necessarily
bear the consequences on such refusal. Therefore, the running of interest on
Rs.1,88,882/- will stop with 15.04.2014, since the respondents 1 and 2 have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
offered to pay that amount on the said date. We cannot mulct the liability to
pay the interest on the judgment debtor, who has offered to pay the money
and in fact paid the money. The liability to pay interest would have ceased
but for the unjust refusal made by the appellant. Therefore, the benefit of
that ceasure must be given to the respondents 1 and 2.
8.If we are to calculate the amount due as on date, if interest is to
be applied 15% per annum on Rs.1,88,882/-, in view of the modification
made by us, the amount due under the decree as on 15.04.2014 i.e., the date
on which the tender was made would have been Rs.6,90,936/-. If we deduct
amount tendered on Rs.6,44,435/-, the balance amount would be
Rs.46,501/-. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to 15% interest on
Rs.46,501/- from 16.04.2014 till date of realisation. We therefore, disposed
of this appeal on the following lines:-
i) The interest payable on Rs.1,88,882/- is enhanced from 12% to
15%.
ii) 15% interest will be payable only on Rs.46,501/- from
16.04.2014 till date of realisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
9.The Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
10.07.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Nuetral Citation : Yes/No
To:-
The V-Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.164 of 2014
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
KKN
A.S.No.164 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2014 & 1 of 2015
10.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
