High CourtsSingle Bench

Vasuki Aravindan vs M. Sundaravarathan

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 November 2015 · Citation: (2015) 11 MAD CK 0078

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Chockalingam, J.
CASE NUMBER
Civil Suit No. 381 of 2013 and O.A. No. 431 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 737 words

G. Chockalingam, J.—The Civil Suit is filed by the plaintiff to direct the defendant to pay the principal sum of Rs. 30 lakhs together with

interest at 24% per annum, payable from 17.12.2012 onwards till the date of realisation; to create charge over the suit schedule mentioned

properties, to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encumbering or alienating or dealing with the suit schedule mentioned

properties, and for costs.

2.

It is the case of the plaintiff that she is doing business in the name and style of M/s. Vinod Builders, which has got its construction business office

in Chennai. The defendant sought M/s. Vinod Builders to construct a marriage hall for him, namely Periyavelikkadu Shri Vekkali Amman

Thirumana Maaligai at Aryanur Road, Periyavelikkadu Village, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 16,870 Sq.Ft. In February 2011,

the defendant represented that he was in urgent requirement of money to settle his creditors and to meet his family expenses, for which, the plaintiff

lent a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs to the defendant, who agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the defendant agreed to

deposit the title deeds of the suit properties as security for re-payment. The defendant executed a Deed of Deposit of Title Deeds, dated

17.02.2011 in respect of the suit properties. He was regularly paying monthly interest of Rs. 75,000/- by cheque and the interest was paid by him

every 17th day of the month by cheque. The defendant was regularly paying interest at Rs. 75,000/- p.m. from 21.03.2011 till 18.12.2012 and

thereafter, neither the interest nor the principal amount was paid by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the above relief.

3.

The defendant was set ex-parte by this Court on 14.11.2014.

4.

The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6.

5.

The plaintiff has clearly proved her case from her oral and documentary evidence that the defendant received Rs. 30 lakhs from her, agreeing to

return the amount with 24% per annum and that the defendant also deposited title deeds in respect of the suit properties in Exs.P-1 and P-2. The

deed of money acceptance is Ex.P-3 and Exs.P-4 to P-6 are the statement of account transactions of the plaintiff issued by ICICI Bank, Canara

Bank and State Bank of India respectively. Even though the plaintiff in the plaint stated that for the money lent by her, the defendant agreed to

deposit the title deeds of the suit properties as security for re-payment, the plaintiff did not seek for any mortgage decree, and hence, she is not

entitled for the mortgage decree and she is only entitled for money decree as prayed for in the plaint.

6.

It is admitted by the plaintiff that she has received Rs. 75,000/- towards interest from from 21.03.2011 till 18.12.2012. It is admitted in the

plaint that for Rs. 30 lakhs, the interest is at 24% per annum. When calculated for one month, the interest comes to Rs. 60,000/-. It is seen from

the plaint that the defendant paid Rs. 75,000/- to the plaintiff as interest per month. The excess amount of Rs. 15,000/- has to be adjusted towards

principal to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in the memorandum filed by the plaintiff, dated 14.09.2015, stated that the said

amount of Rs. 15,000/- has to be adjusted towards the principal amount. The amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff from February 2011

till 17.04.2013, with interest at the rate of 24%, is calculated as under:

7.

Hence, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff Rs. 27,97,800/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs ninety seven thousand and eight hundred only),

with further interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The charge decree prayed for by the plaintiff

cannot be granted and only money decree as prayed for in clause (a) of the prayer is granted.

8.

Accordingly, the suit is decreed to the extent of clause (a) of the prayer, by directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff Rs. 27,97,800/- (Rupees

twenty seven lakhs ninety seven thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of

realisation, with proportionate costs. In other respects, the suit is dismissed. O.A. No.431 of 2013 is closed.