BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI A.S.(MD) No.396 of 2025 &

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.14530 & 19548 of 2025 S.Revathi ... Appellant / Plaintiff Vs.

Smt.Krishnabai (died)

1.S.Sudhakaran

2.S.Premkumar ... Respondents / Defendants PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC praying this Court to partly set aside the Judgment and decree dated 04.06.2025 made in O.S.No.309 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul by allowing the appeal suit.

For Appellant : Mr.I.Romeo Roy Alfred For Respondents : Mr.G.Gomathisankar for R1 : Mr.V.Baskaran for R2

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The plaintiff in O.S No.309 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul is the appellant. The appellant filed the said suit seeking refund of the advance amount paid by her. The suit property belonged to late Krishnabai / mother of the respondents herein. The said Krishnabai and her son S.Sudhakaran / R1 agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant for a sum of Rs.1,72,59,068/-. On 17.08.2019, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the said Krishnabai and the first respondent herein. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to Krishnabai and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the first respondent herein. However, the agreement was not reduced into writing. Ex.A1 dated 17.08.2019 was issued by way of receipt. The appellant subsequently came to know that the suit property was encumbered. The appellant was originally informed that the property was free of encumbrance. Hence, the appellant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police and the same was registered as Crime No.865 of 2020. Ex.A3 is the FIR registered at the instance of the appellant. The parties exchanged legal notices. Ex.A5 dated 18.10.2019 is the notice issued by the appellant's husband, while Ex.A6 dated 14.11.2019 is the reply. The appellant sought refund of the advance amount paid by her with interest. Krishnabai and her son Sudhakaran claimed that only a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was received and sought to fasten the blame on the appellant for non-completion of the transaction. The appellant, therefore, filed O.S No.309 of 2020 before the Court below on 09.11.2020. Written statement was filed and based on the rival pleadings, the court below framed as many as four issues. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant passed away and her other son Premkumar (R2 herein) was brought on record as the third defendant.

2.The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. The defendants 2 & 3 examined themselves as D.W.1 & D.W.2 and no documentary evidence was adduced on their side. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit qua the third defendant. The second defendant was directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- within three months without interest. Aggrieved by the non-fastening of joint liability as against the second respondent / D3 and denial of interest amount, this appeal has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for by modifying the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have complied with the decree passed by the Court below and taking into account the said bona fide act, the appeal may be dismissed.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. The points that arise for determination are whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the advance amount and if so, at what rate and whether the decree has to be passed against the second respondent also.

6.It is not in dispute that Krishnabai and her son Sudhakaran (D2)

had agreed to sell the property