JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, J.

1. The plaint averment in brief:-

Mr. M. Balaji, the plaintiff herein is a businessman in real estate since 2004. He had entered into agreement with land owners in and around Bangalore advancing money to them. The first defendant a businessman dealing with leather products at Chennai in the name of M/s. JAY AR Enterprises, a partnership firm approached the plaintiff expressing his interest in purchasing those properties. On 09.09.2004, the first defendant purchased 50% interest in three acres of land in S. No. 1, Giddanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District through the plaintiff and gained his trust. Subsequently, the first defendant expressed his interest to purchase 5 acres 22 1/2 guntas of agricultural land in Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, in which, the plaintiff had already acquired interest. The sale price for the said land was finalised @ Rs. 46 lakhs per acre with condition that the plaintiff should get permission for converting the usage of the said land, from agricultural to non agricultural purpose. The plaintiff spent huge money for the said conversion and also spent heavily on settling the Court dispute among the land owners.

2. Thereafter, the plaintiff arranged for the sale deeds being executed directly in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff believing the first defendant paid the sale consideration to the land owners from out of his personal fund. The plaintiff by issuing post dated cheques got three sale deeds dated 19.03.2005 and one sale deed dated 11.04.2005 registered in the name of the first defendant directly. Based on the resolution passed by the second defendant firm cheque of the partnership firm was issued by the first defendant to purchase the above said land in his personal name. In the said transaction, the first defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2,56,00,000/- whereas, he paid only a sum of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- was due and payable by the plaintiff.

3. The entire transaction on behalf of the first defendant was done through his Power Agent Krishnamurthy. When the plaintiff demanded the balance of Rs. 79,00,000/-, Krishnamurthy the Power Agent of the first defendant executed a letter of acknowledgment dated 15.04.2006 in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the first defendant issued a cheque from the Bank account maintained by the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- dated 30.10.2007 drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, Haddows Road Branch, Chennai. On 15.04.2008, the plaintiff presented the cheque for collection. The same was dishonoured with endorsement "Insufficient' fund". Notice was issued to the first defendant calling upon him to pay the dues covered under the said cheque. Denying the liability, the first defendant sent a reply dated 30.05.2008. Therefore, the plaintiff has initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prosecute the first defendant before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 19342 of 2008 and the same is pending.

4. Thus, the plaintiff is entitle to receive a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% pa. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,21,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of recovery on the principle sum of Rs. 79,00,000/-.

5. The Written statement averment in brief:-

The defendants deny the plaint averments in toto. According to them, the suit claim is barred by limitation since, the alleged cause of action took place between 19.03.2005 and 11.04.2005. The cheque dated 30.10.2007 is not a fresh promise to pay a time barred debt and it will not give a supporting point for limitation. V. Krishnamurthy who was the erstwhile Power Agent and employee under the first defendant has stolen the cheque leaf from the first d