R.RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. S.B.S.KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before this Court, challenging the dismissal of his suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,20,874.00 with interest at 1.70% per annum on Rs.15,00,000.00 from the date of suit till the date of realization. The suit has been filed as a mortgage suit on the basis of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. To appreciate the grievance of the plaintiff it is necessary to briefly narrate the circumstances which has culminated in the filing of the suit. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the Trial Court Plaintiff's Case:

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit originally before this Court in C.S.No.353 of 1997 and after the framing of the issues by this Court, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court had been enhanced and consequently the suit was transferred to the Civil City Court and re- numbered as O.S.No.3553 of 2013 on the filed of the XV Additional Judge City Civil Court Chennai.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that on 7/8/1995 the 1st defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000.00 and had executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. This amount was also advanced to defendants 2 to 6 and late Rajammal the mother of the defendants who executed the deed as the power agent of Suriyanarayanan, the 5th defendant and S.B.S. Ravi, the 6th defendant. On 8/8/1995 the 1st defendant had executed a financial agreement in and by which the plaintiff had agreed to extend the loan of a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 to the 1st defendant for his business needs. In pursuance of this agreement the 1st defendant had extended a loan of Rs.15,00,000.00 to the 1st defendant for which promissory notes had been executed by the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 and Rajammal had signed the same as guarantors. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Rajammal for herself and as a power agents of defendants 2 to 4 and defendants 5 and 6 executed guarantee letters. Therefore, defendants 1 to 6 and Rajammal are liable to pay the suit claim. Pending the suit Rajammal died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 6 and her daughters who were subsequently impleaded as parties to the suit.