R.KAVITHA v. S.SHARMILA
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2024-02-12. R.KAVITHA v. S.SHARMILA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
C. S. No. 183 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12. 02. 2024 CORAM THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C. S. No. 183 of 2023 R. Kavitha .. Plaintiff Versus S. Sharmila .. Defendant Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants. a) directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,26,44,500/- with subsequent interest @ 12 pa on the principal amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- from the date of the suit to till the date of realisation; b) Awarding cost For Plaintiff : M/s. P. Saravana Sowmiyan For defendant : Set exparte https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis C. S. No. 183 of 2023 JUDGMENT This suit has been filed, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,26,44,500/- with subsequent interest @ 12 pa on the principal amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- from the date of the suit to till the date of realisation. 2.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- on several occasions from the plaintiff and her husband, and executed a promissory note besides depositing title deeds. He also executed a promissory note on 10. 01. 2023 and agreed to pay interest @ 12 pa. The defendant has paid interest only upto March 2023 and thereafter she failed to pay the interest. Since the defendant has failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff arranged funds and paid the entire principal amount of Rs. 1,08,00,000 to her husband on 15. 05. 2023, in turn, her husband Mr. N. Ravichandran had endorsed the demand promissory note on 10. 01. 2023. Thereby, the plaintiff became the holder by indorsement of the promissory note dated 10. 01. 2023 and the deed of undertaking dated 09. 12. 2022 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff's husband was also assigned in favour of the plaintiff. Despite, the legal notice, the defendant failed to the pay the amount.
Hence, https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis C. S. No. 183 of 2023 the suit. 3. Defendant remained ex parte, despite service of summons. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P. W. 1 and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 13 were marked. P. W. 1 – Mrs. R. Kavitha S. No. Date Description of documents Exhibit 1. 15. 01. 2021 Original Deed of Loan P-1 2. 30. 03. 2021 Original Deed of Loan P-2 3. 09. 12. 2022 Original deed of P-3 undertaking given by the defendant in favour of plaintiff 4. 09. 12. 2022 Original deed of P-4 undertaking given by the defendant in favour of plaintiff's husband Ravichandran 5. 10. 01. 2023 Original Promissory Note P-5 6. 15. 05. 2023 Endorsement made by the P-6 plaintiff' husband on the backside of Ex. P5 7. 15. 05. 2023 Endorsement made by the P-7 plaintiff' husband on the backside of Ex. P4 8. 27. 07. 2023 Office copy of the legal Ex-P8 notice sent by the plaintiff https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis C. S. No. 183 of 2023 S. No.
Date Description of documents Exhibit to the defendant 9. - Original postal Ex-P9 acknowledgment card 10. 13. 05. 1991 Certified Copy of the Sale Ex-P10 Deed 11. 15. 10. 1991 Certified Copy of Ex-P11 Rectification Deed 12. 23. 06. 2024 Certified Copy of the Sale Ex-P12 Deed 13. 07. 08. 2023 Certified copy of the Ex-13 encumbrance certificate for the property found in Doc. No. 2370/1991 4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records. 5. P. W. 1, in her evidence, has clearly spoken about the execution of the documents and receipt of the consideration by the defendant. The suit is based on the promissory note and the deed of undertaking. Once the execution is spoken by the plaintiff, the legal presumption gets retracted which has not been rebutted by the defendant. https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis C. S. No. 183 of 2023 6. Considering these aspects and the evidence of P. W.
1 is not even challenged and uncontroverted, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to judgment. In view of the above, I am of the view that the plaintiff has established the case. 7. Accordingly, the suit is decreed, with costs, for Rs. 1,26,44,500/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 7. 5% on the principal amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. 12. 02. 2024 dhk Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non Speaking order https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis C. S. No. 183 of 2023 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. dhk C. S. No. 183 of 2023 12. 02. 2024 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis
Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.