Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
P. Nirmala – Appellant
Versus
P. Poonkodhai – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.597 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. A.L. Ganthimathi, Mr.L.Palanimuthu
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Ramesh
The court found that a suit for mortgage recovery can proceed in the original jurisdiction if parties reside within that jurisdiction, despite the property being located outside it.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 16(c) - Mortgage - The Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.12,30,000/- based on a mortgage deed for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest - The Defendant contended lack of jurisdiction due to the property being outside the court's territorial limits - The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction - The appellate court found the trial court's dismissal perverse as the suit was originally filed with proper leave to sue and the parties resided within jurisdiction - The Defendant's claims of repayment were not substantiated. (Paras 1, 8, 12, 24, 35)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court decreed the suit allowing recovery of the outstanding amount with interest and granted the Defendant one year to settle the dues.
Issues: The main issues were the court's territorial jurisdiction and the merit of the Plaintiff's claim for recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction when the Plaintiff had obtained leave to sue and the evidence did not support the Defendant's repayment claims.
Result: Appeal allowed; suit decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks recovery based on mortgage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant contests jurisdiction and repayment claims. (Para 4) |
| 3. issues framed regarding jurisdiction and entitlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. trial court dismissed suit on jurisdiction grounds. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 5. appellant argues jurisdiction based on residence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. defendant's counsel argues for jurisdiction adherence. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. court discusses procedural history and jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. court finds trial judge's dismissal unjustified. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. evidence supports plaintiff's claim of repayment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. defendant's claims of repayment lack proof. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. trial court's dismissal based on jurisdiction criticized. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 12. appeal granted, preliminary decree issued. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2477 of 2011, dated 28.10.2015.
2. The Appellant is the Plaintiff, who had instituted the suit in O.S. No. 2477 of 2011 for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,30,000/- from the Defendant along with interest at the rate of 2½% per month on Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the borrowal till the date of payment by passing a preliminary decree against the Defendant.
3. The averments in the plaint filed by the Plaintiff are as follows:-
3.1. The Plaintiff is carrying on business as financier and during the course of her business, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Defendant required the said loan for meeting her family needs. The Defendant also offered her property by mortgage to secure the loan. Accordingly, on 25.9.1995, the Plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.4 lakhs and the Defendant executed a registered mortgage deed registered as Doc. No. 4863/1995, at Sub Registrar Office, Adyar. As per the terms of the said mortgage deed, the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.4 lakhs at the rate of 2½ % per month. As security for due repayment of the loan, the Defendant also mortgaged her property situate at No.112, (Old No.142), Palavakkam Village, Muttukadu Road, (East Coast Road), Door No.4/110, Survey No.16/3B, Saidapet Taluk, morefully described in the Schedule to the Plaint. According to the terms of the mortgage deed, if the Defendant failed to repay the loan amount on demand or on failure to pay interest consecutively for a period of three months, the property mortgaged can be brought to sale by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was defaulted in payment of interest right from the date of borrowal and despite repeated reminders and demands, the Defendant has failed and neglected to pay the loan amount and interest due. Therefore, the Plaintiff issued a notice on 9.4.2001 to the Defendant demanding repayment of the entire principal and interest due. The Defendant acknowledged receipt of the notice but did not send any reply. Hence, the Plaintiff is forced to file the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,30,000/- payable by the Defendant, failing which direct sale of the property.
4. The averments in the Written statement filed by the Defendant are as follows:-
4.1. The Plaintiff has no right to file this case in this Court because the mortgaged property is under the jurisdiction of Chengalpattu. So this plaint itself is liable to be contested at Chengalpattu District Court. Hence, the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit itself and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no prima facie to file this suit by the Plaintiff against this Defendant and the Defendant borrowed the loan amount of Rs.4 lakhs for the business development by mortgaging her property. Accordingly, on 25.09.1995, the documents were registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Adyar. But after few days, the Defendant had paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Sanjay Finance on 25.9.1995. But they had not given receipt, that
