The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a money decree for the recovery of the loan amount and interest, based on the execution of promissory notes and agreements of liability by the defendant.

1. This Civil Suit is filed by the plaintiff and prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 70,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization on Rs. 59,00,000/- and also prayed for the sale of the properties of the defendant described in the schedule and permit the plaintiff to adjust the amounts which are due from out of the sale proceeds after defraying expenses and also prayed for personal decree as against the defendant, including sale of two buses bearing Registration Nos. TN.7.AR.4767 and TN.7.AR.4929

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is carrying on business as Financiers lending money for purchase of vehicles on Hire Purchase and defendant requires finance for purchase of two buses bearing Registration Nos. TN.7.AR.4767 and TN.7.AR.4929 from S.V.R. Tours and Travels, Hyderabad and the defendant sought for loan from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to enable the defendant to pay the balance amount due and take delivery of the buses. Therefore, the plaintiff agreed to advance a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- on two conditions namely, making the payment of Rs. 30,00,000/-to and in favour of S.V.R. Tours and Travels, Hyderabad and that the defendant sought executed a pro-note for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in lieu of the sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- agreed by the plaintiff in favour of S.V.Tours and Travels, Hyderabad. Therefore, as undertaken by the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of cash, Rs. 7,14,750/-, Rs. 9,89,400/- and Rs. 9,95,850/- by way of three cheques dated 13.4.2006 directly to S.V.R.Tours and Travels, Hyderabad and also issued a letter dated 13.4.2006, addressed to the plaintiff. For the above said payment, the defendant, in addition to execute a pro-note he had issued a letter of acknowledgement and accepting the liability for the return of sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- together with interest to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- in 30 instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month.

3. It is further averred in the plaint that on 18.4.2006, the defendant again approached the plaintiff for grant of Rs. 20,00,000/- and the defendant agreed to pay the above said amount and accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by way of cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of cash. Thereafter, the defendant executed a pro-note on 18.4.2006 acknowledging the above said Rs. 20,00,000/- and the defendant had agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 36% per annum and also created an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds, registered as Document No.102 of 2002 before the Sub Registrar, Vadipatti, Madurai District, relating to the immovable properties owned by the defendant.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant had returned a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16.5.2006 and another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 29.5.2006. At that stage, when the plaintiff insisted the defendant from making an endorsement of H.P.A.on the R.C. Book, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had already created an H.P.Agreement with Kotak Mahindra in respect of two vehicles for which the plaintiff had already advanced a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the first instalment and Rs. 20,00,000/- later on, out of which, Rs. 10,00,000/- paid by the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant induced the plaintiff somehow settled the issue and consequently the defendant executed an agreement of liability on 14.6.2008.

5. In pursuance of the above said agreement, the vehicle was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 59,00,000/- with subsequent interest thereon and also issued three cheques for a value of Rs. 59,00,000/- namely, Rs. 40,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- respectively in favour of plaintiff.

6. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant had sent a letter dated 24.6.2008 by alleging that the plaintiff had kidnapped the defendant and that