Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
Kasthuri Bai – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.91 of 2022
Decided On : 26-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Rajkumar Ashok Singh
For the Respondent: Mr.Ramesh Kumar G.Chopda
The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of voluntary transfer and encumbrance, which were found improbable, confirming the loan transaction.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for recovery of loan amount - The plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.10,49,699/- with interest from the defendant, who denied borrowing any amount and claimed the funds were retained as security for property encumbrance - The Trial Court decreed the suit based on evidence of loan transaction. (Paras 1, 3, 11, 16)
(B) Loan Transactions - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of voluntary transfer and encumbrance, which were found improbable - The plaintiff's evidence was deemed more credible, confirming the loan transaction. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff lent a total of Rs.8,83,500/- to the defendant, who is her brother-in-law, for family needs and education, which the defendant disputed, claiming it was a part of property sale consideration. (Paras 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiff's case more probable than the defendant's claims, confirming the loan transaction and upholding the Trial Court's decree. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant was liable to pay the suit amount and whether there was a loan transaction between the parties. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant failed to establish his defense regarding voluntary transfer and encumbrance, affirming the plaintiff's claim of a loan transaction. (Paras 16)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for a payment of a sum of Rs.10,49,699/- together with interest @ 6% p.a., on Rs.8,83,500/-from the date of plaint till the date of realisation, the present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant.
2. The parties are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:
3.a. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff's sister Mrs.S.Unaicy Christhi Jothi. The plaintiff sold the property bearing Plot No.1, Govindarajapuram, Nandhivaram Guduvanchery to her sister Mrs.S.Unaicy Christhi Jothi, wife of the defendant as per the registered sale deed dated 21.06.2012. The defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to lend amount for his urgent family needs and sons education on undertaking to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., within a period of three months. Accordingly, on 26.06.2012, the plaintiff had transferred a sum of Rs.5 lakhs through RTGS and Rs.2 lakhs from her savings account at Canara Bank, Gudavancherry Branch to the defendant's account also demand draft of Rs.43,000/- in favour of Valliammai Polytechnic towards the educational fees of defendant's son Samuel was also drawn by the plaintiff. Further, a sum of Rs.1,40,500/- is also transferred to the defendant's account on 29.09.2012. In all, the plaintiff had let a sum of Rs.8,83,500/-.
3.b. The defendant had repaid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.03.2013 to the plaintiff and the said amount is adjusted towards interest. Thought the defendant undertook to pay interest @ 24% pa., the plaintiff is restricting his claim for interest @ 12% pa., The plaintiff has issued a legal notice for repayment of the amount and it is also his case that while issuing legal notice by mistake, the plaintiff had omitted to mention about the transfer of Rs.5 lakhs to the defendants on 26.06.2012. Hence, the suit has been filed for recovery.
4. It is the case of the defendant in the written statement that sale consideration of the property is Rs.50 lakhs and a sum of Rs.35 lakhs has been paid in cash on various dates, that apart, Rs. 15 Lakhs was obtained from M/s.Shriram Housing Finance Limited is also paid to the plaintiff through demand draft. It is the contention of the defendant that the property was sold in the name of defendant's wife is not free from encumbrance, thus, the plaintiff herself voluntarily come forward to retain the sum of Rs.8,83,500/-, a part amount of the sale consideration as a security till the encumbrance cleared and the sale deed mentioned property free from encumbrance. In that said amount, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.7,33,500/- towards the sale proceedings till the plaintiff clear the encumbrance over the property. Further, the defendant has also given a criminal complaint against the third parties in Cr.No.30 of 2013 and the plaintiff has pressurised the defendant for repayment of amount by giving police complaint for return of Rs.9,50,000/- at one stroke, therefore, the defendant has issued a legal notice dated 11.03.2015 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the sale amount of Rs.42,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., Hence, according to the defendant, there was no loan borrowed from the plaintiff at any point of time and opposed the suit.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,49,699/- together with interest @ 6% p.a., on Rs.8,83,500/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization?
2.To what other reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled to ?
6. On the side of plaintiff, plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and on the side of the defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked.
7. Base
