The plaintiff failed to establish a valid loan transaction with supporting evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the suit and appeal.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.37,99,500/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 12 per annum on Rs.22,35,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of judgment and at the rate of 6% on Rs.22,350,000/- per annum from the date of judgment till the date of realisation, the present appeal is filed by the defendant.

2. The parties herein are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts in filing this appeal are as follows:-

a. The plaintiff is a tenant under the first defendant. The plaintiff is retired from the Indian Air Force. Both of them were well acquainted over years and on account of the acquittance, there was some financial transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The first defendant approached the plaintiff for lending money and assured good rate of interest. The plaintiff advanced his savings and the earnings of his daughter and his son to the first defendant who in turn financed the defendants 2 and 3 on various dates. The defendants 2 and 3 used to give cheques as security. There is no direct dealing between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants 2 and 3 are added for effective adjudication and no relief is sought against them. The first defendant informed that the defendants 2 and 3 were evading to pay the interest or principal and therefore, till such time the amounts are repaid the plaintiff was permitted to stay in the first defendant's house without payment of rent. The plaintiff is not having personal contact with the defendants 2 and 3 even on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff is in occupation of the premises, the first defendant tried to evict the plaintiff from the premises and he has also given a complaint against the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has a due of Rs.38 lakhs. Hence, the suit for recovery of money.

b. It is the contention of the first defendant that the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law, no pre-suit notice was issued by the plaintiff. The defendant is also not aware of the transaction entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant categorically denied having borrowed any money from the plaintiff either for himself or for being passed onto the other defendants. In the police complaint dated 23.08.2016, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the first defendant has not made any payments to the plaintiff for 5 years prior to the complaint. Hence, opposed the suit.

c. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed?

3. To what other relief?

d. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. The first defendant having filed written statement did not adduce evidence. The defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte.

4. The Trial Court after appreciation of the entire evidence has decreed the suit as stated above vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the first defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/first defendant submitted that the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a tenant under the first defendant. The contention that the plaintiff has advanced such huge amount without any document is highly improbable. The very suit itself shows that to avoid eviction proceedings, the suit has been filed usi