KRISHNA PONNUSWAMY Vs. PUNITHA ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs originally filed a suit against the defendants praying for a judgment and decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.27,35,000/ - with interest at 12% per annum. The suit was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and as such the present claim is only for the remaining principal amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The plaintiffs wanted defendants 6 to 10 to pay the balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs with interest. The facts:

(2.) THE plaintiffs are stated to be the relatives of Thiru K. Kalimuthu, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu and later its Speaker. According to the plaintiffs, Thiru Kalimuthu was in financial difficulties in connection with the management of his petrol bunk at Madurai besides the marriage of his daughter Mrs.Amudha Prasanna. In order to meet certain other financial commitments, Thiru Kalimuthu approached the plaintiffs in May 2006 to provide him a loan of Rs.25 lakhs. The second plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the account of first plaintiff and thereafter, she took three demand drafts for a total sum of Rs.20 lakhs (Rs.9 lakhs - two D.Ds and Rs.2 lakhs - one D.D.) in the name of Thiru Kalimuthu. After receiving the demand drafts dated 29 May 2006, a demand promissory note was executed by Thiru Kalimuthu on the very same day agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY and more particularly, a few days prior to the marriage of the eighth defendant, Thiru Kalimuthu approached the second plaintiff once again for a hand -loan of Rs.5 lakhs, to meet the expenditure in performing the marriage. The second plaintiff mobilized the amount and paid the same to him. Thiru Kalimuthu, on receipt of the amount, issued a cheque bearing No.174376 dated 20 August 2006 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and requested the second plaintiff to present the cheque after a period of two months. Therefore, in total, Thiru Kalimuthu received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. Subsequently, Thiru Kalimuthu died and he is survived by the defendants. Even though the plaintiffs called upon the legal heirs of the deceased borrower and more particularly, the first defendant herein to pay the amount, they have shown an indifferent attitude resulting in filing the suit.