Raj Kumar Chordia vs Dr.S.K.Mukilan

Suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.28,00,000/- from the date of plaint till

the date of reliazation.

The brief facts narrated in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the money lender had advanced a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant on 10.11.2008 on the said date the defendant had

executed a registered Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds, depositing the Title Deeds relating to the property situate at Door No.7,

Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, as security for repayment of the said loan borrowed by him. Again on 26.06.2010, the defendant

approached the plaintiff and sought for further loan of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was advanced by the plaintiff and the defendant executed a

promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. During May 2011, the

defendant sought for further loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, which was also advanced by the plaintiff on 05.05.2011, as security for repayment of the said

sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, the defendant had executed a demand promissory note agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the

said sum of Rs.6,00,000/-

Apart from paying the total amount of Rs.2,16,000/- towards interest, the defendant did not repay the monies borrowed by him. The defendant

came forward and executed compromise in and by which he agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.28,00,000/- towards the loans borrowed from the

plaintiff on 16.08.2011. Since the defendant did not repay the money, as agreed by him under the compromise dated 16.08.2011, the plaintiff

issued a notice on 07.02.2013, calling upon the defendant to repay the amount of Rs.28,00,000/- with subsequent interest and the said notice

returned with an endorsement ''door locked''. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit seeking recovery of a sum of

Rs.28,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realization

The defendant was served, he did not appeared either in person or through counsel duly instructed. Hence, the defendant was called absent and

set ex-parte on 07.12.2015 and the suit was posted for ex-parte evidence before the Additional Master. Before the learned Additional master, the

plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P33 were marked. Since only Xerox copies were marked at the time of tendering evidence, the

learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff was directed to produce the originals and the originals have been produced and they were again marked.

From the documents produced by the plaintiff the borrowing has been established. The defendant has not come forward to either deny or affirm

the borrowing. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents establishes the borrowing and the fact that the defendant had agreed to repay

the loan with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Hence the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.