SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 705

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. GNANAPRAKASAM
R.S. Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Smt. M. L. Peratchi Alias Solvi and Others - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 671 of 2000 and C.M.P. No. 7288 of 2000
Decided On : 24 July 2000

Appearing Advocates:V. Shanmugham, P. Rathinadurai, Advocates.

When language of provision is clear, plain and unambigussed, only the plain meaning is to be adopted.

Headnote:(A)Interpretation of Statutes - Principles of construction -When language of provision is clear, plain and unambigussed, only the plain meaning is to be adopted.

       (B) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.38, Rule 6 (2) and O.43, Rule 1(q) - Dismissal of application praying court to direct respondent to furnish security in certain sum failing which to attach schedule property before judgment-Appeal against such order will not lie but only a revision.

       

Judgment :-

A.S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J.

The above civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the applicant in I.A. No. 770 of 1999 in O.S. No. 108 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin against the order dated 19-1-2000, dismissing the application filed under O. 38, R. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 108 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin against the respondents herein praying the Court.

(i) to pass a preliminary decree directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 12,62,066/- with subsequent interest from the date of the plaint on Rs. 4,00,000/- at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum and subsequent interest on the second and third loans at 24 per cent. per annum till payment is made, failing which to pass a final decreed for sale of the property son in the schedule to the plaint and to pay the decree amount out of the sale proceeds and if the same is not sufficient to pay the decree amount;

(ii) to pass a personal decree against the estate of late M. Lakshmana Pillai in the hands of the respondents/defendants and for other reliefs.

3. Pending suit, the appellant filed I.A. No. 770 of 1999 under O. 38, R. 5 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying the Subordinate Court for a direction, directing the respondents to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 12,62,066/- before a date to be fixed and failing which to attach before judgment the immovable property shown in the schedule to the petition and to order interim attachment till the security is furnished.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application the appellant has averred that the husband of the first respondent and father of the other respondents executed two promissory notes of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 1-12-1995 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 4-11-1996 and again on an agreement borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27-12-1997 for his business purpose. On the very same day of the first borrowal viz., on 1-12-1995 as a collateral security for the said sum due on the promissory note, he deposited his title deeds relating to the properties shown in the schedule with the appellant with an intention of creating an equitable mortgage for the sum due. Following this on 2-12-1995 the said deceased-Lakshmana Pillai executed a memorandum confirming the deposit of title deeds with the appellant with the intention of creating a mortgage for the amount due. Even for the second loan borrowed on 4-11-1996 the said Lakshmana Pillai extended the equitable mortgage already created over the schedule mentioned property on 1-12-1995. On 5-11-1996 he executed a memorandum confirming such extension of the mortgage already created to cover the second also. The third loan viz., Rs. 1,00,000/- was borrowed on 27-12-1997 and he executed an agreement in that regard, which is dated 28-12-1997. On 5-3-1998 the said Lakshmana Pillai died. On 23-3-1998, the respondents gave a letter, acknowledging the debts. It is the case of the appellant as set out in the affidavit that the said Lakshmana Pillai was a respectable and reliable person and that though the value of the property mortgaged was low, on the trust and confidence on the person, the appellant advanced the money over and above the value of the property. It is further stated in the affidavit that even after giving the acknowledgment letter, wherein they agreed to repay the amount shortly, they failed to do so and this made the appellant to send a notice, dated 5-4-1999 for which the respondents replied with false and untenable allegations even denying the third loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respondents after sending the reply approached the appellant through mediators and requested the appellant to grant three months' time to repay the loan and to waive a portion of the interest and further promised to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- before 25-4-1999. It is the specific case of the appellant that in spite of paying the said money the respondents are making hasty arrangement



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top