Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Narasimhan - Appellant
Versus
V. Rangarajan - Respondent
A.S. No. 489 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 20299 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2022
For the Appellant:K.M. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondent:A.P. Loganathan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C to determine the nature of the transaction and the liability of the defendant.
Headnote:
Loan Dispute - Civil Procedure - Order XLI Rule 27 - Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code - O.S.No.3902 of 2017 - 12.03.2018 - XV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai - 1. Whether the plaintiff advanced Rs.15 lakhs as loan to the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.17,46,500/- together with interest at 12% on the principal sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim 12% interest on the loan advanced to the defendant? 4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled? - The court found that the defendant had admitted receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, the amount was given towards borrowal only and that the defendant was liable to repay the same. The suit was partly decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8.25% per annum from 07.03.2016 till the date of realization. The defendant filed an appeal and a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C to produce additional documents. The court allowed the petition and directed the trial Court to take further additional evidence to mark the additional documents and to forward the records for further hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a judgment and decree to recover a sum of Rs.17,46,500/- from the defendant, claiming it was a loan for purchasing a flat. The defendant denied borrowing the amount and claimed it was his share of the sale proceeds of the father's property. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed an appeal and a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to produce additional documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had admitted receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- and was liable to repay the same. The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and directed the trial Court to take further additional evidence to mark the additional documents for further hearing.
Issues: The issues included whether the amount was a loan or the defendant's share of the sale proceeds, and whether the additional documents should be allowed as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the admission of receipt of the amount by the defendant and the need for further evidence to determine the nature of the transaction.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the trial Court was directed to take further additional evidence to mark the additional documents for further hearing.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, Read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.3902 of 2017 dated 12.03.2018 on the file of XV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27, to permit the Petitioner/Appellant to produce additional documentary evidence in the above A.S.No.489 of 2018.)
1. The defendant in O.S.No.3902 of 2017, which was on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant herein.
2. O.S.No.3902 of 2017 had been filed by the respondent herein/V.Rangarajan against the appellant herein/V.Narasiman, his own elder brother, seeking a judgment and decree to pay a sum of Rs.17,46,500/- towards principal and interest and with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.15,00,000/-, the principal amount from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation and for costs.
3. In the plaint, it has been stated that the defendant therein/the appellant herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) on 28.02.2016 for purchasing a flat and the plaintiff had issued a cheque No.416273 dated 28.02.2016 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, West Saidapet Branch, Chennai –600 015. It was stated that the cheque was also encashed. It was further stated that the defendant/appellant herein promised to return the amount whenever demanded. It was further stated that since the amount was not repaid, a legal notice dated 30.03.2017 was issued. The defendant/appellant herein issued a reply on 06.04.2017. Claiming that the amount is due and payable, the suit has been instituted for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) together with interest and costs.
4. In the written statement, the defendant/appellant denied that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.02.2016 for purchasing a flat. He further denied that he had agreed to return the amount when demanded with interest. The defendant further stated that he, the plaintiff and one Sriram are brothers. The defendant was the eldest son. Their mother died on 16.03.2007. After her death, the plaintiff/respondent herein created troubles and the father, who was alive, was not allowed to open his mouth. The father was more than 84 years old and was the owner of a property in Door No.20/8, Central Excise Colony, West Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015, measuring one ground, in which there was a building both in the ground floor and the first floor. In the year 2012, when the father was 87 years, he was forced to promote the property by giving it to a builder, who was known to the plaintiff/respondent. At that time, there was no necessity for money since the father was a Central Government pensioner. It was agreed that the property would be developed and the sale amounts would be divided equally. The father died on 14.12.2015. The ceremonies got completed on the 13th day. On the 10th day and on the 13th day, all the relatives were present. The defendant/appellant claimed his share in the movable and immovable properties on the 11th day/25.12.2015. On 31.12.2015, the plaintiff/respondent agreed to pay an initial amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) towards his share and issued a cheque on 28.02.2016.
5. It was stated that the defendant/appellant left for U.S in May and returned in September 2016. Since his total amount of share was not paid, he issued a letter to the Manager, Tamil Nadu State Co-Op. Apex Bank Ltd., Saidapet to prevent the plaintiff/respondent from operating the locker of the father. Similar letter was also written to State Bank of India, Mylapore Branch. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff/respondent was a counter blast to the said attempt. It was stated that the defendant was a senior officer in EID Parry India Ltd., and was also working after his retirement as a Consultant, and there was no necessity to take loan from the plaintiff to purchase a flat. It w
