Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Judgment on a Debt Recovery Suit: Kumaravel vs Plaintiff, Papers of Criminal Law

Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law UniversityCriminal Law

A court judgment on a debt recovery suit filed by a plaintiff against the legal heirs of kumaravel, who allegedly borrowed money from the plaintiff. The case revolves around a promissory note executed by kumaravel, his death, and the defendants' claim that the note is fabricated and the loan was already repaid. Evidence presented by both parties, the court's findings, and the final decision on the case.

Typology: Papers

2022/2023

Uploaded on 03/26/2024

fairoze-ahmed
fairoze-ahmed 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 9

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
IN THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MANAPPARAI.
Present : Tmt.L.Shakila, M.A., M.L.,
Sub Judge,
Manapparai
Monday, this the 29th day of January’ 2024
O.S.No.415/2020
CNR.No.TNTP1A-001863-2020
Saraswathi & Co. Financies,
Rep. by its Proprietor Palaniyappan …Plaintiff
Vs
1. K.Pakiyalakshmi
2. Packiyam
3. Minor Pavawn Puthira (age 10)
4. Minor Pavisri (age 6)
(3rd and 4th defendants Rep.by their Guardian/Mother
1st defendant K.Pakiyalakshmi)
…Defendants.
This suit came up before me on 10.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru.A.Annadurai, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Thiru.K.Palanikumar, Advocate
for the Defendants and upon perusing the relevant records and upon hearing both
side, this Court has delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of
Rs.4,08,000/- from the defendants with subsequent interest and for suit costs.
2. The brief averments in the plaint runs as follows:
The plaintiff submit that one Kumaravel borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from
him accepting to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and
accordingly executed the suit promissory note on 07.10.2017. The plaintiff further
submit that the said Kumaravel died on 16.12.2019 and that the defendants are his
legal heirs enjoying his properties. The plaintiff further submit that since the
defendants did not pay the borrowed amount inspite of repeated demands, he issued
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9

Partial preview of the text

Download Judgment on a Debt Recovery Suit: Kumaravel vs Plaintiff and more Papers Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!

IN THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MANAPPARAI.

Present : Tmt.L.Shakila, M.A., M.L., Sub Judge, Manapparai Monday, this the 29th^ day of January’ 2024 O.S.No.415/ CNR.No.TNTP1A-001863- Saraswathi & Co. Financies, Rep. by its Proprietor Palaniyappan …Plaintiff Vs

  1. K.Pakiyalakshmi
  2. Packiyam
  3. Minor Pavawn Puthira (age 10)
  4. Minor Pavisri (age 6) (3rd^ and 4th^ defendants Rep.by their Guardian/Mother 1 st defendant K.Pakiyalakshmi) …Defendants. This suit came up before me on 10.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Thiru.A.Annadurai, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Thiru.K.Palanikumar, Advocate for the Defendants and upon perusing the relevant records and upon hearing both side, this Court has delivered the following: JUDGMENT Suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- from the defendants with subsequent interest and for suit costs. 2. The brief averments in the plaint runs as follows: The plaintiff submit that one Kumaravel borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him accepting to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and accordingly executed the suit promissory note on 07.10.2017. The plaintiff further submit that the said Kumaravel died on 16.12.2019 and that the defendants are his legal heirs enjoying his properties. The plaintiff further submit that since the defendants did not pay the borrowed amount inspite of repeated demands, he issued

an advocate notice on 22.01.2020 for which the defendants replied with full of false averment and hence this suit for recovery of money.

3. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st^ defendant and adopted by other defendants runs as follows: The defendants denied the averments in the plaint. The defendants submit that the suit promissory note has been fabricated by the plaintiff as if Kumaravel had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, that the plaintiff is not at all a holder in due course of the suit promissory notice as it has not been addressed to the plaintiff and that the promissory note is an incomplete instrument. The defendants further submit that Kumaravel did not borrow Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff, that he borrowed a small amount and he himself during his life time has discharged the same for which the plaintiff has issued endorsements in two hand note books. The defendants further submit that after the demise of Kumaravel, the plaintiff has manipulated the suit promissory note with an ulterior motive of getting undue enrichment if possible and hence the suit has to be dismissed. 4. Based on the above pleadings, this court has framed the following issues:

  1. Whether husband of 1st^ defendant namely Kumaravel had executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff?
  2. Whether the said promissory note will bind the defendants?
  3. Whether plaintiff is entitled recovery of money as prayed for?
  4. To what relief plaintiff entitled?
  5. On the side of the plaintiff, he has examined himself as P.W.1, has examined one Saravanakumar as P.W.2 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 were marked. On the side of the
  1. The plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined himself as P.W.1, has examined the attestor of Ex.A-1, promissory note, one Saravanakumar as P.W.2 and has marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Ex.A-1 is the Promissory note dated 07.10.2017, Ex.A-2 is the office copy of Advocate notice dated 22.01.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, Ex.A-3 is the reply notice dated 27.01.2020, Ex.A-4 is the acknowlegment cards. On the side of the defendants, the 1 st defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 were marked. Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 are the hand note books in the name of the Kumaravel. 9. Admitted Facts: The admitted fact is that the 1st^ defendant is the wife of Kumaravel, that the 2nd defendant is the mother of Kumaravel, that the defendants 3 and 4 are the son and daughter of Kumaravel and that Kumaravel died on 16.12.2019 leaving the defendants as his legal heirs.
  2. In the present case, the plaintiff in order to prove the attestation and execution of promissory note, Ex.A-1 has examined the attestor of Ex.A-1, promissory note as P.W.2 who had categorically stated in his evidence that Kumaravel borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.10.2017 by executing a promissory note and that he attested the same. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined by the defendants, their evidence has not been shattered by way of cross examination. Here in this case P.W.2 has clearly speaks about the passing of consideration, execution and attestation of the promissory note, Ex.A-1. Thus as soon as the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary.
  1. In this aspect it is necessary to reproduce Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as follows: Sec.118. Presumption as to Negotiable Instruments: - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:- (a) of consideration- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transfered, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; In the present case, the plaintiff has proved the attestation and execution of Ex.A-1, promissory note by way of examining the attestor as P.W.2 and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the statutory presumption as above and the onus is upon the defendants to raise a probable defense. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the defendant.
  2. When the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden with regard to the execution and attestation of the pronote, the burden lies on the defendants to prove that the amount borrowed by Kumaravel was discharged during his life time itself. Though the defendants contend that Kumaravel borrowed a small amount and that the same was discharged during his lifetime itself, absolutely there is no pleading as to When, for What interest and How much amount was borrowed by Kumaravel and When, in Whose presence and How much amount was paid by Kumaravel. The defendant has marked two hand note books in the name of Kumaravel as Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2. The specific case of the defendants is that the plaintiff has endorsed the receipts of the amount. While so no oral and documentary evidence was let in to prove the same. Further, though the defendants contend that the entire amount was discharged by Kumaravel even during his lifetime as per Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2, on perusal of Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2, it is found that the entire loan amount has not been discharged from which it is evident that the defendants have not come forward with

case by examining himself, the attestor and from Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. But the defendants had failed to prove the discharge of the borrowed amount. From Ex.A- and from the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 this court comes to conclusion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported with consideration. While so, the contention of the defendants that the borrowed amount was discharged by Kumaravel and that the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note is not acceptable.

  1. Admittedly the borrower Kumaravel died and that the defendants are his legal heirs. D.W.1 herself has admitted in her cross examination as if the house in which she is residing presently belongs to Kumaravel and that there are other ancestral properties to Kumaravel and the relevant portion of cross examination of D.W.1 is as follows: D.W.1 Cross examination: “--- நான் "ற்ப,ாது குடியிருக்கும் வீ டு என் கணவருக்கு ,ாத்தியப்,ட்ட வீ டு என்றால் சரி"ான் .” “--- என் கணவருக்கு பூர்வீக தெசாத்துக்கள் தெ,ாறுத்து வழக்குகள் உள்ளது என்றால் சரி"ான். என் கணவருக்கு பூர்வீக தெசாத்துக்கள் உள்ளது என்றால் சரி"ான். ஆனால் அ"னைன தெ,ாறுத்து வழக்குகள் உள்ளது .” As the plaintiff has proved his case by both oral and documentary evidences, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim amount and the defendants as legal heirs of the deceased Kumaravel, who are enjoying his estates are liable to pay the amount. Thus these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants. 16. Issue No: As issue No’s.1 to 3 has been answered as against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, the suit has to be decreed with costs. The plaintiff has prayed for subsequent interest also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent interest is fixed at 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

17. Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- along with 9% interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization to the plaintiff. Typed by me in computer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29 th day of January’ 2024. Sub Judge, Manapparai Plaintiff's side witness: P.W.1 ... Thiru.Palaniyappan (Plaintiff) P.W.2 … Thiru.Saravanakumar Plaintiff's side Documents: Ex.A-1 07.10.2017 Pronote Ex.A-2 22.01.2020 Office copy of Advocate notice issued by the plaintiff Ex.A-3 27.01.2020 Reply notice Ex.A-4 Acknowlegment card (No’s 2) Defendants Side witness:- D.W.1 .. Tmt.Pakiyalakshmi ( st Defendant)