Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
Mr. R. Ravinder Kumar - Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. T. Selvadurai - Defendant
C.S.No.808 of 2014
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Aravind Subramanian Senior counsel (for Mr. M. Nandakumar).
For the Defendant : Mr. A. Ganesan.
A party must prove the authenticity of documents in debt recovery cases, and suits can be dismissed if filed beyond the limitation period.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for debt recovery - Execution of promissory note and memorandum of title deeds - Suit dismissed for failure to prove execution and validity of documents - Clear evidence of forged documents presented by defendant - Suit barred by limitation as it was filed after ten years of alleged transaction. (Paras 2, 4, 15)
(B) Legal principles - A promissory note and memorandum lacking necessary legal witnessing cannot be upheld - Burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to substantiate claims regarding loan and its terms. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff provided a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- to the defendant at a high interest rate and claimed greater amounts based on compounded interest. The defendant contended the documents were forged and the claim was barred by limitation due to the time elapsed since the loan's inception.
Findings of Court:
Court found the plaintiff failed to prove the legitimacy of the promissory note and memorandum, leading to dismissal of the suit.
Issues: Main issues included the authenticity of the memorandum, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and if the plaintiff was entitled to relief based on the documentation provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to prove the authenticity of the memorandum of title deeds and the promissory note, coupled with the excessive gap in time to file the suit, warranted dismissal.
Result: Suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan agreement and security deposit (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's claims of fraud and forgery (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues framed for consideration (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. plaintiff's arguments on loan terms (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. defendant’s counterarguments regarding documents (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's scrutiny of document authenticity (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. failure to prove documents affects plaintiff's claim (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. issues on notice and limitation period (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. dismissal of suit based on findings (Para 17) |
| 10. final ruling of the case. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
The Plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants seeking the above said reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint is as follows;
(a) The defendant approached the plaintiff for taking a loan and in pursuance thereof, he executed a promissory note dated 16.06.1994 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the plaintiff at the rate of 2.5% interest per month, which can be compounded if there is any delay or default in payment of interest or repayment of the principal amount. The defendant, as security for the borrowed amount, has deposited with the plaintiff, his original sale deed bearing Document No.2697 of 1989, dated 10.07.1989 pertaining to the property situate in Maduravoyil Village, Chennai.
(b) Ever since the receipt of the loan amount, the defendant neither paid the interest, nor paid the principal amount. Hence, in order to secure the plaintiff, the defendant executed a written memorandum dated 12.01.2004, reduced to writing, recording the completed act of deposit of title deeds with the plaintiff while admitting the total debt of Rs.30,00,000/-, as it stood then by way of compound interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.Thereafter, the defendant neither paid the principal amount nor paid the interest. Failure to redeem all the monies along with interest thereto subjected the plaintiff to much more irreparable loss and severe hardship. Since the defendant has acknowledged and admitted in writing the total debt owed by him as of 12.01.2004 and have also with free consent has recorded the deposit of his title deeds with the plaintiff as recent as of 12.01.2004 by way of memorandum and therefore the suit for foreclosure and sale is being filed well within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act.
(c) The total amount recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant amounts to a sum of Rs.7,58,09,578/- as on 07.11.2014 from 16.06.1994 calculated at the agreed rate of interest at 2.5% per month (compounded) for 244 months and 22 days. However, the plaintiff taking note of the present circumstances of the case is willing to claim only Rs.90,00,000/-. Although the mortgaged property is situated in Maduravoyil Village, since promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds have been executed at T.Nagar and the residence of the defendant is at Vysarpadi, the whole cause of action has risen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this suit.
3. The Written Statement filed by the defendant is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff has come to this court with clean hands and he filed the above suit using forged and fraudulent documents and suppressing the real facts with a malicious intention to grab the property of the plaintiff and also recover money from him illegally. The defendant never resided at Vyasarpadi, as mentioned in the suit which is fake address wantonly given by the plaintiff to get favourable order in his name without serving notice to the defendant and by cheating this Court, he also got exparte order in C.S.No.808 of 2014 in the absence of the defendant.
(b) Earlier, he resided at Kosapettai, Chennai from 1986 to 1990 and later, he shifted his residence to Pattalam, Chennai, and resided there till 2003 and finally, he shifted his residence to his present address at M.K.B.Nagar, Chennai and living there permanently till this date. No notice or summon was served to t
