N V P PANDIAN Vs. M M ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant in O. S. No. 1675 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,975/- with future interest and costs in the following circumstances.

(2.) According to the respondent the appellant is a building contractor and was at the relevant time constructing house No. 35, Muthu Gramani Street, Mylapore, Madras-4. He used to apply for loans to the respondent for his construction work. In 1968, the respondent was making attempts to get a seat for her son in the Madras Medical College. The appellant promised to obtain a seat for the respondent's son in the Medical College if the respondent would lend him some money. Accordingly, the respondent paid Rs. 15,000/-in all to the appellant. However, her son could not get a seat in the Medical College. Since the appellant had obtained the money from the respondent on false representation he was bound to repay the same. On 8-1-1971 he also executed Ex. A-1 agreement undertaking to repay the money on or before 31-3-1971. Since he failed to make the repayment, the suit had to be filed by her for the refund of the money.

(3.) The appellant in his written statement totally denied the averments in the plaint. He never received any money from the respondent as loan. He did not make any promise to the respondent that he would secure a seat for her son in the Medical College. He denied having executed any agreement as alleged in the plaint. He further stated that the respondent was introduced to him by one Dr. Susai. Dr. Susai and the respondent had told him that one Subramaniam of Chintadripet has undertaken to procure a seat for the respondent's son in the Medical College and had received a large sum of money. However, he could not be traced and hence they wanted the help of the appellant in tracing the whereabouts of the said Subramaniam. They could not tract Subramaniam. They therefore began to falsely implicate the appellant and finally took a promissory note executed by him by force with the help of a police officer just on the eve of his son's wedding. Within a few days of the execution of the promissory note the appellant sent a notice to Dr. Susai and the respondent to return the promissory note. The appellant then issued a lawyer's notice on 171-1971 and the respondent sent a notice on 3-12-71 claiming the refund of Rs. 15,000/-. He further pleaded that in any event the object of contract being against public policy, the respondent would not be entitled to any relief.