The guarantee executed by defendants is valid despite claims of coercion; all parties are jointly liable for repayment.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.NO. 51 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit against the third and fourth defendants and also the dismissal of the claim of interest of 30% as agreed by the first and second defendants to pay the amount of Rs.3,98,20,200/- with the interest of 30%.

2. For better appreciation of fact and easy reference, the rank of the parties stated in the Court below is followed hereunder:

2.1. The appellant is running a finance business in the name of M/s.Raja Holding (Firm registered under the partner ship Act 1932) at Door No.69, town High Secondary School Road, Kumbakonam.

3. The first defendant is arrayed as first respondent in this appeal and the second defendant is arrayed as second respondent and the third and fourth defendants are arrayed as third and fourth respondents. During the pendency of the appeal, the first defendant died and hence, the legal heirs are added as a party to this proceeding.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court

4.1.The first and second defendants, son-in-law is third defendant and the daughter is fourth defendant. First and second defendants have jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.2,78,00,000/- upon execution of 13 promissory notes on various dates commencing from 30.06.2009, with undertaking to repay the amount with interest of 36% per annum for the family business Senthilnathan Agency and N.Meena Enterprises and for other family expenses. Apart from that on 30.03.2011, the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed a short term loan amount of Rs.3 crores from the plaintiff on 30.03.2011 upon executing the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff with undertaking to pay the interest for the said loan at the rate of 36% per annum. Thereafter they have made some payment and agreed to repay the entire amount by executing undertaking letter dated 07.05.2011 with promise to pay the amount within a week. Again on 22.10.2011 D1 and D2 have jointly executed confirmation letter acknowledging the repayment of the amount of Rs.2,99, 40,000/-. In the said letter, they undertook to repay within 20 days. The third defendant/son- in-law and the fourth defendant/daughter of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 specifically undertook to repay the amount by executing the guarantee letter dated 15.11.2012. They were also not interested in the repayment. On the basis of the letter dated 07.05.2011, 22.10.2011 and 15.11.2012, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt amount. Since, the defendants 3 and 4 in the guarantee letter dated 15.11.2012 demanded reduction of interest and also some interest was paid and the plaintiff filed a suit claiming 30% interest. The plaintiff suit was filed for recovery of the amount of Rs.3,99,20,220/- with agreed interest of 30% from the date of plaint till the date of realization.

5. The case of the defedants 1 and 2 before the trial court:

They defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement admitting the relationship and also admitted the above mentioned transaction in the plaint. They also admitted the execution of the promissory notes, execution of the undertaking letter dated 07.05.2011, 22.10.2011 and further the guarantee letter executed by D3 and D4 dated 15.11.2012. But, they sought to dismiss the suit against D3 and D4 and also they sought the benefit under the Tamil Debt Relief Act and also raised a plea that the rate of interest was against the law and