Madras High Court
G.Ramakrishnama Naidu vs S.P.S.Veera Reddy on 15 June, 2023
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No.291 of 2017
and Cross Objection No.75 of 2017
A.S.No.291 of 2017
1.G.Ramakrishnama Naidu
2.Vijayalakshmi .. Appellants
Vs.
S.P.S.Veera Reddy .. Respondent
PRAYER : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree dated 07.10.2016 passed in
O.S.No.417 of 2013, on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Prabakaran
Cross Objection No.75 of 2017
S.P.S.Veera Reddy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.G.Ramakrishnama Naidu
2.Vijayalakshmi .. Respondents
PRAYER : Cross Objection is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, praying to award the interest amount being a sum of
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
Rs.5,68,800/- on the principal debt amount of Rs.7,90,000/- from the date of
borrowal to till the date of filing the suit.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.Sundaravadanam
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated
07.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.417 of 2013, on the file of the XVI Additional
City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The 1st appellant/ 1st defendant and the respondent /plaintiff
were college mates and they were working together at Hindu College,
Pattabiram. They were family friends also. The defendants, being family
friends, approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.7,90,000/- for purchase of a
flat at Bangalore and to repay the same. The plaintiff paid Rs.7,90,000/- by
on 20.11.2009 and the defendants promised to repay the same on demand
with interest at the rate of 24%. The 1st defendant executed a promissory note
on 20.11.2009. The 2nd defendant stood as a guarantor. For the repayment of
the loan with interest, they surrendered a document pertaining to an
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
immovable property in Tiruvallur Taluk. In spite of repeated demands, the
defendants failed to discharge the loan.
3. On hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit
partly with costs. The 1st defendant was directed to pay a sum of
Rs.7,90,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% from the date of
decree to till the date of realization to the plaintiff. The suit against the 2nd
defendant was dismissed. By challenging the said judgment, the plaintiff has
preferred this appeal.
4. To prove their defence, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was
examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked and on the side of the
defendants, D.W.1 & D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were
marked.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent
herein filed a suit in O.S.No.417 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional City
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
Civil Court, Chennai, against the 1st appellant for recovery of money, and the
2nd appellant stood as guarantor. According to the respondent, the 2nd
appellant's property was given as surety. The document of title in the name of
the 2nd appellant was also marked as Ex.P2 by the respondent. The suit was
decreed partly, namely, the decree for recovery of money was alone granted,
and the suit against the 2nd appellant was dismissed, by decree and judgment
dated 07.10.2016. The first appeal is filed by the appellants and the same is
pending. The respondent had also filed the cross objection against the
disallowed portion in respect of interest. The appellants filed an application
in CMP.No.10915 of 2017 in A.S.No.291 of 2017. This Court granted stay of
the decree on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.5,17,250/- to the credit of the
suit, by interim order dated 04.09.2017. The 1st appellant had deposited the
same on 05.12.2017.
6. Both the cases were listed for final hearing. On discussion of
both the parties, it was agreed to settle the long pending disputes, as both the
1st appellant and the respondent know each other for more than 3 decades.
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
7. The terms of compromise have been arrived at between the
parties as follows:
"a. The sum deposited by the 1st appellant have to be
taken by the respondent as full and final satisfaction of the
Decree. The respondent shall not claim any further amount to
satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.417 of 2013 on the file of
the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Thereby
necessary permission shall be granted to the respondent to
withdraw the deposit made to the credit of the suit in
O.S.No.417 of 2013, on the file of XVI Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai, in conformity to the order passed in
CMP.No.10915 of 2017 in A.S.No.291 of 2017.
b. The 2nd appellant is entitled to take back the original
document, which is marked as Ex.P2 before the trial Court. The
respondent has no objection for the application that to be filed
by the 2nd appellant before the trial Court for return of
documents.
c. The appellant is entitled to the return of Court fee paid
in the first appeal.
d. The respondent is entitled to the return of Court fee
paid in the Cross Objection."
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
8. When the matter is taken up for hearing, today, the appellants
and the respondent appeared in person before this Court, along with their
respective learned counsels. As per terms of compromise, the claim between
the parties are settled. The 2nd appellant is entitled to get back the original
document Ex.P2 before the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to return the
document / Ex.P2 original document to the 2nd appellant, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
10. Since the matter was settled out of Court, the appeal suit
is dismissed as settled out of Court. Compromise memo shall farm part of the
decree.
15.06.2023
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
To
1.The XVI Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR section,
High Court of Madras.
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S..No.291 of 2017
and Cross. Obj.75 of 2017
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
A.S.No.291 of 2017
and
Cross Objection No.75 of 2017
15.06.2023
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
