JUDGMENT

This appeal suit is filed against the judgement and decree dated

05.02.2015 in O.S.No.8415 of 2010 passed by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,60,868/- and for the rendition of accounts was partly decreed by directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,60,868/- along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum while dismissing the suit in respect of the relief of rendition of accounts.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that her husband namely Koil Chitra Pandian, first defendant/L.Nagarajan, second defendant/Sitrasenan, third defendant/Thinakar jointly carried on business of sale of vegetables and fruits, etc., in the name and style “Ashtalakshmi Kaikani Angadi”. During the course of the said business, they purchased the suit schedule property jointly vide sale deed dated 14.07.2004, in which the plaintiff's husband, the first defendant and the second defendant had a share of 27.5% each and third defendant held the balance of 17.5% share. The said property was purchased after taking loan from REPCO Home Finance Limited. It was decided by them that they would carry on with the business and from profits arising out of the business, the mortgage loan with the bank would be paid back.

3. While so in the year 2006, the plaintiff's husband was about to leave for Italy and therefore by a registered settlement deed dated 15.11.2006, he settled his share in the suit scheduled property to and in favour of the plaintiff. While so on 04.04.2007 for loan purposes, the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney, which was duly registered at the Office of the Sub-registrar, Adyar, as Document No.897 of 2007 in respect of her 27.5% share constituting the first defendant as her lawful Power of Attorney. Thereafter representing that the defendants have decided to sell the property, the first defendant handed over a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- on 05.09.2007.

4. During June 2008, when the plaintiff visited the Income Tax Department office to file the returns, she came to know that the said property has been sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,31,00,000/- and as such the plaintiff was called upon to pay a huge amount of income tax arrears. Thus, she came to know that the property has been sold and the business has been wound up and the first defendant without any rendition of accounts has taken away the assets, which were totally valued at Rs.30,00,000/-. The first, second and third defendants had totally concealed the profit of Rs.91,00,000/-. As per the sale deed dated 31.08.2007, a total sum of Rs.56,92,515/- was paid as loan repayment to REPCO Home Finance Limited and the balance sum of Rs.52,46,617/- was retained by the first defendant towards the share of the plaintiff, his own share and that of the third defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 01.07.2008, calling upon the defendants to pay her share of Rs.20,60,868/- after deducting Rs.4,00,000/-, which was already paid. To the said legal notice, a reply notice was issued alleging that Rs.8,00,000/- had already been paid and that no other amount is payable. The particulars in the reply notice are false and therefore the present suit.

5. The suit is resisted by the first defendant by filing a written statement, in which it is stated that the suit property was originally purchased for a sum of Rs.45,35,100/-. Towards the purchase, the plaintiff's husband did not contribute, but only borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-

from REPCO Home Finance Limited and the said loan amounts were also paid only from the income from the business. The plaintiff's husband had only invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the business. Therefore, after considering the entire accounts relating to the business, the plaintiff's husband agreed for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as full and final settlement and the same was paid as Rs.4,00,000/- by way of cheque on 05.09.2007 and Rs.4,00,