HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendant No.1/Trust, its Chairman and Treasurer, defendants No.2 & 3 respectively, praying inter alia for a decree of Rs.73,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., costs and expenses. Besides the above relief, the plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/Trust, restraining it from parting with the parcel of land measuring 0.89 hectare situated in village Thada, Tehsil Tizara, Rajasthan, original title deeds whereof were handed over by the defendant No.1/Trust to the plaintiff No.1/company as security for the loan advanced.

2. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiff No.1/Company is in the business of financing, with or without security. It is stated that the plaintiff No.1/Company sought to enter into a partnership with the defendant No.1/Trust to run a hundred-bed hospital along with a dental college, which was awaiting approval from the DCI, for 100 BDS seats. As per the understanding between the plaintiff No.1/Company and the defendant No.1/Trust, against surety of a parcel of land measuring 0.89 hectares situated at village Thada, Tehsil, Tizara, Rajasthan offered by the defendants, the plaintiff No.1/Company had extended a loan to the tune of `73,50,000/- to the defendant No.1/Trust by making staggered payments. The first cheque received by the defendant No.1/Trust on 21.4.2009 was for the sum of `10.00 lacs, the second cheque for the sum of `16,50,000/- was received on 30.4.2009, the third cheque for the sum of `17,00,000/- was received on 29.3.2010, the fourth cheque for the sum of `43,50,000/- was received on 1.4.2010 and the last cheque for the sum of `30.00 lacs was received by the defendant No.1/Trust on 4.6.2010.

3. To secure the loan advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1/Trust, the latter had handed over the original title deeds of the subject parcel of land to the plaintiff No.1/Company. Subsequently, the aforesaid project did not take off and the plaintiffs kept approaching the defendant No.1/Trust for return of the said amounts given as loan to the latter and upon failure to receive any response from their end, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff No.1/Company in August 2011.

4. Summons were issued in the suit and appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the averments made in the plaint have been duly admitted. The defendants have stated therein that they do not have any objection if the land in question, the original title deeds whereof are in the custody of the plaintiffs as security for the loan availed, is disposed of and the sale proceeds are adjusted towards the outstanding amount which is payable to the plaintiffs.

5. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that in view of the admissions made by the defendants in their written statement, a judgment on admission may be passed in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, by decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint.

6. As the other side has no objection to the aforesaid request, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that they are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.73,50,000/- from the defendant No.1 along with interest payable @ 10% p.a. from the date the staggered amounts were paid to the defendants, till realization. Further, as agreed, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount by selling the parcel of land owned by the defendant No.1/Trust, measuring 0.89 hectare situated in village Thada, Tehsil Tizara, Rajasthan, and adjusting the sale proceeds against the decretal amount. It is however clarified that when the plaintiff No.1/Company identifies a suitable buyer, it shall give a written intimation of the offer received from the buyer for purchase of the said land to the defendant No.1/Trust and if the defen