The limitation for recovery of a loan starts post the agreed repayment period, not from transaction dates, preserving the plaintiff's right to sue.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2023 RSA No.625/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.1/2020 on the file of III Additional District Court, Kollam which was filed against the judgment in O.S. No.44/2015 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kollam.

2. RSA No.628/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.19/2020 which was filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the partial dismissal of O.S. No.44/2015. A.S. No.1/2020 was filed by the defendants against the decree passed partly in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff is the appellant. The 3rd defendant is the eldest sister and 2nd defendant is the daughter of 3rd defendant and 1st defendant is the husband of the 2nd defendant. The defendants on getting information about the proposed sale of properties of the plaintiff at Nedungolam approached the plaintiff and demanded a loan of Rs.10 lakhs for constructing a building in the property of 1st defendant at Thattamala for letting out to Mayyanad Co-Operative Bank Limited. Though the plan of the plaintiff was to avail a loan of Rs.6 lakhs for the purpose of constructing the house, the defendants requested to avail loan of Rs.16 lakhs in order to advance Rs.10 lakhs to the defendants for a period of two years. The defendants in turn agreed to repay the EMI for the loan regularly without default from monthly rent to be received from the tenant.

4. But ultimately Rs.10 lakhs was advanced from the sale consideration which the plaintiff received on sale of his property. Then 1st defendant entrusted two signed blank cheques as security. On 02.05.2011 the defendants 2 and 3 and plaintiff reached at SBT, Paravoor branch and accepted a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs from the plaintiff and encashed Rs.10 lakhs by presenting the cheque given by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants did not pay the EMI as agreed. Defendants paid Rs.2,80,500/- through the account of the plaintiff. Though they constructed the building and let out the same to Mayyanad Co-Operative Bank Limited, in spite of the demand by the plaintiff to repay the balance amount it was not repaid. Thereafter, plaintiff filed complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chathannoor and City Police Commissioner, Kollam, but with no result. Thereafter, lawyer notice was issued for which a reply was sent raising untenable contentions. Hence the suit.

5. Defendants filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. The entire financial transaction alleged by the plaintiff with the defendants is denied. The 1st defendant is immensely rich and there is no occasion for him to avail a loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had continuous money transaction with the second defendant. Second defendant repaid substantial portion of loan amount together with interest at agreed rate. No receipt was received since the plaintiff is her uncle. The case of the plaintiff regarding the remittance of Rs.2,80,500/- is denied. The cash transaction between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant though closed, there are some disputes with regard to the rate of interest which resulted in filing the suit.

6. PW1 to PW3 examined and Ext.A1 to Ext.A15 marked from the side of the plaintiff. There was no evidence from the side of the defendants.

7. The trial court on evaluating the facts, circumstances and evidence found that an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- has been paid by the defendants and hence the defendants succeeded to prove partial discharge and the suit was decreed for Rs.5,40,000/- with interest @ 12% and the cost.

8. Against which the defendants 2 and 3 filed A.S.

No.1/2020 and the plaintiff filed A.S. No.19/2020. The 1st Appellate Court heard the appeals together and a common judgment was passed. A.S. No.1/2020 was allowed and A.S. No.19/2020 was dismissed on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 20 of the Limitation Act. 9. Against which the plaintiff approaches this Court in second appeal and this Court ad