The issuance of a cheque constitutes a promise to pay a time-barred debt, and presentment of the cheque is not always necessary for liability under certain conditions.

JUDGMENT :

N. Satthish Kumar, J.

1. The sole defendant before the trial court who suffered a money decree is the appellant. The sole respondent is the plaintiff before the trial court.

2. The suit in O.S.No.585 of 2019 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,23,333/- from the defendant with subsequent interest on principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at the rate of 1% per Rs.100/- and for the costs of the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

(a) The defendant entered an agreement of sale with him 14.08.2011 for the sale of the suit scheduled mentioned property for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as advance on the date of agreement itself.

(b) The balance sale consideration payable was Rs.7,00,000/-. As agreed between them, the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration within a period of three years and to have the sale concluded.

(c) The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant was, however, requesting further time. Accordingly, time was extended for another two years orally since the defendant had not got the original title deeds released from his other party.

(d) As the defendant did not hand over the original documents pertaining to the suit property, in the presence of the mediator, it was decided that the plaintiff had to get his money back, and the defendant agreed to return the advance money received under the agreement of sale with a nominal interest of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant issued a cheque dated 08.05.2016 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Rasipuram branch, promising to pay the cheque amount within two months and to get back the cheque. Believing the words of the defendant, the plaintiff did not present the cheque for collection.

(e) However, after the issuance of the above cheque, the defendant neither paid any amount towards interest on the advance money nor did he return the advance money. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, no amount was paid by the defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant in brief is as follows:

The defendant opposed the suit, inter alia, contending that he had not executed any agreement of sale on 14.08.2011. He has borrowed money only Mahalakshmi Finance at Tiruchengode and handed over a cheque and signed blank papers. The plaintiff was one of the Directors of the said Mahalakshmi Finance. After the suit was filed, when he approached the plaintiff and enquired of the cheque, the plaintiff informed him that he could do whatever he wanted. Original records have not been filed along with the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court for trial:

(1) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money being the suit amount a sum of Rs.13,23,333/- with subsequent interest for the pricinipal as prayed for?

(2) To what other relief the respondent/plaintiff is entitled?

6.1 During the trial, on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of his case, he examined one Ganapathi as P.W.2 and marked