Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 27015
2024:MHC:3317 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 22.07.2024 Pronounced on : 02.08.2024 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR S.A.(MD)Nos.140 and 141 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3319 and 3320 of 2019 and 12591 and 12593 of 2022
1. Muthuraj
2. Parvathi ... Appellants in both the appeals Vs.
1. A.Sannasi Chettiar
2. Senthil
3. Panchavarnam (R3 Died Memo filed)
4. Ajithkumar
5. Jeevarani (Minor R4 and R5 are declared as majors and guardianship of their mother (R3) is discharged vide Court order dated
16.03.2022 made in CMP(MD)Nos.2138 and 2139 of 2022 in SA(MD)No.140 of 2019)
6. Chinnan ... Respondents in SA(MD)
No.140 of
2019
1. A.Sannasi Chettiar
2. Veeruchinnammal ... Respondents in SA(MD)
No.141 of
2019 Common Prayer : These Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside judgment and decree dated 04.08.2018 passed in A.S.Nos.42 and 41 of 2017 on the file of Additional District Court (FTC), Theni confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2017 passed in O.S.Nos.21 of 2013 and 112 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Theni and allow these Second Appeals with costs.
(in S.A.(MD)No.140 of 2019)
For Appellants : Mr.Anand Chandrasekar for Mr.P.Muthu Vijaya Pandian For R1, R2 & R6 : No appearance For R4 & R5 : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar (in S.A.(MD)No.141 of 2019)
For Appellants : Mr.Anand Chandrasekar for Mr.P.Muthu Vijaya Pandian For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.140 of 2019 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.42 of 2017 dated 04.08.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Theni, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.21 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.
2. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.141 of 2019 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 2017 dated 04.08.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Theni, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.112 of 2009 dated
14.03.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.
3. Though separate judgments came to be passed by the Courts below, since the matters are connected with each other and for convenience sake this Court has decided to pass common judgment. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.112 of 2009 are husband and wife and the first plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 2009 along with his son Senthil (second plaintiff) and the legal heirs of his deceased son Alaguvel (plaintiffs 3 to 5) have filed the other suit in O.S.No.21 of 2013.
5. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the defendants are belonging to Unjampatti Village of Theni Taluk.
6. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.
112 of 2009 will be referred to as Sannasi Chettiar and his wife and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 2013 will be referred to as Sannasi Chettiar and his sons.
7. The Original Suit in O.S.No.112 of 2009 is for recovery of money due on the promissory note dated 10.10.2006 alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Sannasi Chettiar and his wife. The Original Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2013 is for recovery of money due on the simple mortgage deed dated 02.11.2006 alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Sannasi Chettiar and his sons.
8. The case of Sannasi Chettiar and his wife is that the defendants 1 and 2 have borrowed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Sannasi Chettiar and his wife on 10.10.2006 to meet out their urgent family expenses and to clear the sundry debts and executed a promissory note therefor agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum to Sannasi Chettiar and his wife or their order on demand, that since the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid any amount either towards principal or towards interest, Sannasi Chettiar and his wife were constrained to send a legal notice dated 14.09.2009 to the defendants 1 and 2 demanding payment of the amount covered by the promissory note with interest, that the defendants 1 and 2 having received the legal notice on 19.09.2009 have neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand and that therefore Sannasi Chettiar and his wife were forced to file the suit in O.S.No.112 of 2009 for recovery of the promissory note debt with interest and costs.
9. The case of Sannasi Chettiar and his sons is that the defendants 1 and 2, after getting the first loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2006, have approached Sannasi Chettiar and his sons and demanded further loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for their very urgent family expenses, that Sannasi Chettiar and his sons have informed the defendants 1 and 2 that they were not in a position to advance the loan on the basis of the promissory note and demanded security, that the defendants 1 and 2 agreeing for the same have executed a simple mortgage deed dated 02.11.2006 in favour of Sannasi Chettiar and his sons, that since the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid any amount due on the promissory note, Sannasi Chettiar and his wife have filed the suit in O.S.No.112 of 2009, that since the defendants 1 and 2 have not turned up to settle the amount even thereafter, Sannasi Chettiar and his sons have sent another legal notice dated 22.03.2010 demanding to repay the amount and that since the defendants 1 and 2 having received the same have sent a reply notice dated 03.04.2010 with false and frivolous allegation, Sannasi Chettiar and
