IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 05.11.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.01.2020 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN A.S.No.276 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 D.Jayaraman ... Appellant Vs.

Mouttouvelou Represented by his Power of Attorney T.S.Chandrasekaran ... Respondent Prayer: First Appeal filed under Order IV Rule 14 of the Appellate Side Rules r/w Section 96 of C.P.C.,1908, against the judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2011 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.91 of 2006.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Mukundan For Respondent : No appearance Set exparte vide order dated 05.11.2019.

*****

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Pondicherry, the first defendant has preferred this First Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the first defendant is his father-in-law and the plaintiff is having French citizenship and on 12.09.1999, the first defendant solemnized his daughter's marriage with the plaintiff and subsequent to the marriage, the plaintiff settled at France along with his wife and taking advantage of the plaintiff's French citizenship, the first defendant used to borrow money from the plaintiff during the past three years on several occasions for the purpose of meeting out his family expenses by promising to repay the same on demand to the plaintiff. Whenever the first defendant demanded the amount for his family expenses, the plaintiff used to send the same to the first defendant 's Indian Overseas bank account, at Pondicherry and accordingly the plaintiff has sent various amounts on various dates ranging from 25.03.2003 to 16.04.2004 in all, totally Rs.6,72,464/- and the first defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of receipt till repayment. In spite of repeated demands made and also put forth through the plaintiff's agent, the defendant had failed to repay the amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 10.02.2006 and the notice had been duly received by the defendant and approached the plaintiff and his agent and requested one month time to settle the amount with interest. The same had been accepted by the plaintiff since the defendant being his father-in-law and even after the said request, the defendant had not come forward to repay the said amount with interest and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for the recovery of the amount due to him with interest and costs.

5. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has not properly instituted the suit through his power of attorney agent. The plaintiff's suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been admitted and the defendant has also admitted that the marriage between the plaintiff and his daughter was solemnized on 12.09.1999. However, the defendant has denied that taking advantage of the French citizenship, he borrowed various amounts from the plaintiff for the past three years as set out in the plaint and promised to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as claimed in the plaint. The defendant is a lecturer working in the Government of Pondicherry and earning sufficient money for his livelihood and therefore, there is no need on his part to borrow any amount from the plaintiff for meeting his family expenses. At the time of the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant's daughter, the plaintiff was working in a private company at Pondicherry and only thereafter he had taken the initiatives to settle at France and at at that point of