The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/defendant seeking a money decree against the defendants.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
(i) The plaintiff is a registered firm dealing in financial activities, which advanced a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the first defendant for redeeming a Mortgage Deed, dated 10.11.1998, that had been duly executed by the first defendant, Rani Ammal in respect of the property comprised of house, ground and premises bearing Door No.6A, Plot No.35, Aandavar Nagar, Third Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. The said Mortgage Deed was registered as document No.3656 of 1998 in the Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam. According to the plaintiff, though the mortgage was for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, as per the deed, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs for principal and interest to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, No.27, Kalappa Achari Street, Park Town, Chennai-600 003, the mortgagee, as per the Mortgage Deed executed by the first defendant, as referred to earlier. The first defendant had also availed further financial assistance on the strength of her title deeds. In view of the said discharge made by the plaintiff, the first defendant executed a letter of undertaking in a non-judicial stamp paper acknowledging her liability of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the plaintiff. The original documents pertaining to the suit property and the cash receipts inclusive of discharge receipt are in the custody of the plaintiff. The first defendant was willing to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff for promoting her property, which is the suit property and thereafter, the plaintiff can sell the same as flats. She had also agreed further to pay interest regularly as specified, on or before 5th of every month for the amount Rs.5.5 lakhs and settle the dues within 15 months and also executed a Joint Development Agreement on 30.03.1999. The plaintiff is a promoter of the property, as per the agreement.
(ii) The first defendant executed a General Power of Attorney, authorising the plaintiff to promote the said property and thereafter to dispose the same as flats, after the construction being made by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has not come forward to discharge her obligation in respect of the joint venture agreement and she has not surrendered the possession of the property to the plaintiff, but delayed the matter substantially to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and he is also a beneficiary of the funds that was advanced by the plaintiff for the redemption of the mortgage. Hence, he has been impleaded as a party to the suit. The third defendant is the daughter of the first and second defendants and the fourth defendant is the husband of the third defendant. While the defendants 3 and 4 were partners in the plaintiff firm, they availed a loan Rs.15 lakhs on executing promissory note. The first defendant, being the mother and mother-in-law respectively of the defendants 3 and 4 stood as guarantor for the loan amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The first defendant has given the suit property as security and executed deed of undertaking, dated 28.12.1998 under Ex.A13 and 14 in favour of the plaintiff.
3. According to the plaintiff, on the date of the filing of the suit, the amount due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff was Rs.20.5 lakhs. The defendants are liable to pay the said amount with 24% of interest and cost. With the above pleadings, the suit has been filed by plaintiff.
4. The brief averments of the Written Statement are follows:
(i) The first defendant has admitted that the third defendant is the daughter of the first and second defendants and similarly the fourth defendant is the husband of the third defendant. According to the first defendant, the defendants 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the suit and with an an ulterior motive, the first and second defendants were arrived as defendants in the suit. The first defendant has denied the allegations that she has obtained a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs as loan from the plaintiff, in order to discharge a mortgage created by the first defendant. The first defendant has also denies the averments of the plaint that the plaintiff is a registered firm. According to the first defendant, she had paid the money payable under the Mortgage Deed executed in favour of Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits for the redemption of the property mortgaged by her. The averments of the plaintiff in respect of Rs.5.5 lakhs paid by the plaintiff for redemption is denied as false by the first defendant. According to the first defendant, she had mortgaged the property with Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits only for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was repaid by her. She has also disputed the validity of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. According to the first defendant, no deed of undertaking was executed by her as alleged by the plaintiff. However, she had stated that pursuant to the agreement that was arrived at for construction of flats in the suit property, she executed a joint development agreement with the plaintiff. According to her, at the time of the execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the first defendant in blank papers and stamp papers stating that the same were required for getting clearance in the name of the first defendant from the Corporation, CMDA, Electricity Board, Metro water and other authorities for the sake of convenience.
(ii) According to the first defendant, her signatures were obtained only in the blank papers and stamp papers by the plaintiff. The defendants 3 and 4 were also partners of the plaintiff's firm. Hence, the first defendant had no reason to suspect the motive of the plaintiff in obtaining her signatures in blank papers at the time of execution of the joint development agreement. The plaintiff agreed to construct building in the ground plus two floors, but did not obtained any sanctioned plan for the said construction. Hence, the plaintiff terminated the joint venture agreement and also cancelled the General Power of Attorney Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and demanded for the return of original documents of title and also the letters and blank papers obtained with the signatures of the first defendant. According to the first defendant no amount was due and payable by her to the plaintiff. With the above averments, the first defendant pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The second defendant has also filed his Written Statement and also adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant. According to the second defendant, he is no way liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff, as claimed in the plaint.
6. Based on the pleading of the both the parties, the following issues are framed to decide the suit :
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.20.5 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., from the defendants 1 to 4 as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to proceed against the plaint schedule property in case of default of the suit claim ?
3. Whether the second defendant is not a necessary party to the suit and the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ?
4. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable ?
5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as against first defendant as there is no cause of action against her as alleged in the plaint ?
6. Whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm is maintainable ?
7. Whether the claim made by the plaintiff on the basis of an alleged mortgage which is not in force is maintainable ?
8. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action ?
9. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ? "
6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 : The plaintiff has filed the suit, seeking a money decree against the defendants 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.20.5 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of realistion and also for the costs. If the amount is not paid within the time specified by the Court, to bring the suit schedule of property for sale, so as to realise the amount with interest and costs. In order to establish the suit claim, C.Natarajan, Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm examined himself as PW1, apart from filing his Proof of Affidavit. On the side of the plaintiff, Exs.P.1 to P.21 were also marked. According to PW1, the first defendant had obtained a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs from the plaintiff for the purpose of redeeming the mortgage dated 10.12.1998 created by her. Though the consideration, as per the Mortgage Deed was only Rs.1,25,000/-, according to the plaintiff, Rs.5.5 lakhs was paid towards the principal and interest to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits to redeem the mortgage. In support of the contention Exs.P1 to P.21 were marked. Exs.P19 and P20 are the Discharge Receipts obtained from Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, Park Town, Chennai-3, the mortgagee and the Partnership Deed entered into between C.Natarajan, Managing Partner of the plaintiff and six others. Exs.P13 is the undertaking given by the defendants 3 and 4 for the personal loan of Rs.15,00,000/- obtained by them from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has also signed as a witness to the document and having received the aforesaid amount towards the redemption of mortgage created by the first defendant and also the personal loan obtained by defendants 3 and 4, no amount was paid by the defendants. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking money decree to recover the said amount with interest and cost.
7. In the cross-examination, the first defendant, who was examined as DW1 has admitted that the signature available in the Exs.P11, P13, P15 and 16 are her own signatures. However, according to her, Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits had given her only Rs.1.25 lakhs and she denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the mortgagee for the purpose of discharging the loan obtained from Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits. She has further stated that she does not know whether the plaintiff had paid the entire amount to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits or not. The first defendant has also took a self contradictory view that the loan was discharged by her, though the relevant documents for the discharge of loan were produced only by the plaintiff and not by the first defendant.
8. As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a registered firm, dealing with financial activities and in the course of business, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs for redeeming the mortgage deed, dated 10.11.1998, that was duly executed by the first defendant herein in respect of her property, comprised of house, ground and premises bearing Door No.6A, Plot No.35, Aandavar Nagar, Third Street, Vadapalani, Chennai600 026. Though the mortgage was created by the first defendant by receiving a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs was paid by the plaintiff to the mortgagee, Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits towards the principle and interest for the redemption of mortgage. In support of the plaintiff's case, the managing partner of the plaintiff's firm was examined as PW.1, apart from the filing of his proof of affidavit. He has also filed Exs.P5, P6, P7, P13, P19 and P20 in order to establish that the amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs was actually paid by the plaintiff for redeeming the mortgage dated 10.11.1998 created by the first defendant herein.
9. The first defendant, who was examined as DW1 has also filed proof affidavit in respect of her claim and according to her, the amount due and payable to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, was repaid by her, for which no supporting document was marked by the first defendant. According to the first defendant, the amount borrowed under the mortgage deed from Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, was only Rs.1,25,000/-, that was repaid only by her and the alleged payment of Rs.5.5 lakhs made by the plaintiff on behalf of the first defendant towards the mortgage is false. As per the proof affidavit filed by the first defendant, Exs.P7 and P8 are fabricated documents and her signatures were obtained in blank papers and stamped papers, which were misused by the plaintiff for fabricating the documents. Ex.P7 is a letter dated 01.12.1998 said to have been written by the first defendant to the plaintiff, it contains three pages and the first defendant has admitted the signature available in page No.3 of the document, however, she has disputed the first two pages, as the said pages have not contained her signature. However, interestingly the signature available in the third (last) page has been admitted by the first defendant, which reads as follows :
" I shall hand over possession to Madangi Credit Syndicate (Regd) immediately on redemption of the said mortgage and shall also register a Power of Attorney in their or in their nominee's favour immediately on such redemption.
This letter is given to you to enable you to approach Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits for and on my behalf for redeeming the mortgage of the aforesaid property and to receive the original documents in their possession relating to the said property."
11. The averments available in the document in Page Nos.1 and 2 is that the first defendant Mrs.Rani Ammal had addressed the letter dated 01.12.1998 to the plaintiff, authorising the plaintiff for redeeming the mortgage created by her with Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits. According to the plaintiff, though the amount stated in the document was only Rs.1,25,000/- the amount due and payable with interest was Rs.5.5 lakhs. The continuation of the letter, authorizing the plaintiff to redeem the said mortgage is available at Page No.3, wherein the signature of the first defendant is admittedly available. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it being a letter of the first defendant, she put her signature only in the third and last page of the letter, which is quite normal, since no person may sign each and every page of his letter, however, the first defendant has disputed the document on flimsy grounds, but the third and last page, admittedly signed by the first defendant is sufficient to establish the fact that she had requested the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage created by her with Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits. Ex.P8 is another letter dated 01.12.1998 addressed to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits by the first defendant, the letter has been typed in one page, wherein the signature of the first defendant is available and in the cross-examination, the first defendant, as DW.1 has admitted that the signature available in Ex.P8 is her signature, but strangely, she has stated that she does not know the contentions of the document, though she has admitted her signature. In her proof of affidavit, she has disputed even the signature available in Ex.P8. The in-consistent statement available in the proof of affidavit filed by the first defendant and her deposition admitting her signature and also the denial of her own signature available in the deposition recorded in the open court, would clearly show that the first defendant was not prepared to speak the truth for the reasons best known to her.
12. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved that Ex.P.7 and Ex.P8 were executed by the first defendant. As per Ex.P8, letter addressed to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, the first defendant had informed the said mortgagee that Madangi Credit Syndicate (Regd), who is the plaintiff herein had been authorized by her to redeem the mortgage created by her in respect of her property at Door No.6A, Plot No.35, Aandavar Nagar, Third Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026, by way of a registered document No.3656 of 1998 in the S.R.O.Kodambakkam on 10.11.1998. In the said letter, the first defendant has further averred that the plaintiff wanted a power of attorney, in order to proceed with the preliminary work of the business of promoting flats, hence, she had requested the mortgagee to issue "No Objection Certificate" and further requested that on receipt of the mortgage amount from the plaintiff to cancel the mortgage and after registering the same to hand over the original mortgage deed to the plaintiff herein.
13. It is seen that Ex.P.10 is a registered power of attorney deed, dated 30.03.1999 executed in favour of Madangi Credit Syndicate (Regd), the plaintiff herein represented by its managing partner C.Natarajan by the first defendant. The first defendant, as DW1 has admitted in her chief examination that Ex.P10 was executed by her and her husband, the second defendant, who is a witness to Ex.P.10 and admittedly it is a registered document. However, the first defendant has stated that she did not know anything about the recitals in Ex.P.10, such a defence cannot be accepted. Ex.P12 is the joint venture agreement dated 30.03.1999 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant herein. The first defendant has disputed the power of attorney deed, dated 30.03.1999 executed by her, on the other hand she has filed Ex.D5 cancellation deed of the Power of Attorney dated 21.03.2000 executed by her. As per the document she has canceled the power of attorney deed, dated 30.03.1999 registered as document No.224 of 1999, Book No.4, Volume No.223, Page No.143 to 145 in the S.R.O.Kodambakkam, executed in favour of the plaintiff herein, M/s.Madangi Credit Syndicate (regd), partnership firm, represented by its managing partner C.Natarajan. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff without executing the registered power of attorney deed in favour of the plaintiff there could be no possibility for the first defendant to register the said cancellation deed of the power of attorney deed, Ex.D5, referring the aforesaid details of the power of attorney deed, dated 30.03.1999.
14. According to the plaintiff for redeeming the mortgage created by the first defendant in favour of Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs was paid by the plaintiff towards the principal and interest, though the amount specified in the mortgage deed in the year 1999 was only Rs.1.25 lakhs and further the defendants 3 and 4 have obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff for which, the first defendant stood as a guarantor and therefore according to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 4 are liable to repay the amount of Rs.20.5 lakhs inclusive of interest jointly and severally with subsequent interest and costs. However, in order to fix the liability on the second defendant, the plaintiff has not filed any document. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has not disputed that as per the documents marked by plaintiff, the second defendant was neither the principal borrower nor a co-obligant or a guarantor.
15. It has been stated that Ex.P11 is a letter dated 07.12.1998 signed by the defendants 3 and 4 to the said document. Mrs. K.Rani Ammal, the first defendant herein has signed as a witness, admittedly, she is the mother of the third defendant and mother-in-law of the fourth defendant and it was attested by a notary public. As per this document, the defendants 3 and 4 had admitted that they borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with 36% p.a., Ex.P13 is a document dated 28.12.1998, which was executed in Rs.20/- non-judicial stamp paper, signed by the defendants 3 and 4 attested by the first defendant herein and another witness in the presence of a notary public, whereby the defendants 3 and 4 have admitted that they have borrowed the said loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff herein for their personal business purpose and agreed to repay the same in the form of executing an undertaking letter.
16. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, I am of the view that the plaintiff has established the suit claim against the defendants 1, 3 and 4. However, there is no acceptable evidence available to establish the suit claim against the second defendant and further, the interest claimed at 24% p.a., is also not legally sustainable. As it is a commercial transaction, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to claim 18% interest p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., till the date of realisation. The plaintiff is also entitled to bring the schedule mentioned property for sale, in order to satisfy the decree, if the suit amount is not paid within the time stipulated by this Court. Issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
17. Issue No.3 : The second defendant has filed his written statement stating that the second defendant is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. In addition to that he has adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant. It is not in dispute that the first defendant is none other than the wife of the second defendant, however, in order to make the second defendant liable for the suit claim, the plaintiff has to establish that the second defendant is also liable to pay the amount claimed in the plaint. To make the second defendant liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit, no supporting document signed by the second defendant has been marked by the plaintiff. It is seen that the second defendant has been arrayed as one of the defendants, merely because he is the husband of the first defendant. Even, according to the plaintiff, for the loan obtained by the defendants 3 and 4, only the first defendant stood as guarantor. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 & 2 argued that the second defendant is no way liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not convince the Court as to how the second defendant is liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit and therefore, the Court is of the view that the second defendant is not liable to pay amount to the plaintiff and he is not a necessary party to the suit, however, the suit is not bad on the ground of misjoinder of parties. Accordingly, the third issue is answered.
18. Issue Nos. 4 & 5 : The defendants have raised a defence in the written statement, that the suit as framed is not legally maintainable, however, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have not explained as to how the suit as framed is not legally maintainable. It is seen that the plaintiff has filed the suit, based on the authorisation given by the first defendant, dated 01.12.1998 to redeem the mortgage created by her in respect of her property at D.No.6A, Plot No.35, Aandavar Nagar, Third Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. Ex.P.8 letter was addressed by the first defendant to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits. She intimated the mortgagee by way of the letter that she had no objection for the property being redeemed by the plaintiff. She has admitted the signature available in the documents filed on the side of the plaintiff. Similarly, Ex.P.10 is a registered power of attorney executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, to which her husband, E.Kabali, the second defendant herein was a witness. Ex.P.11 is an undertaking given by the defendants 3 and 4, for which the first defendant had been one of the witnesses. It is seen that Ex.P.11, undertaking letter was executed in the presence of a notary public by D3 and D4 to pay the amount Rs.15,00,000/- borrowed by D3 and D4.
19. Similarly, Ex.P.12 is the joint development agreement between the first defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced various receipts for the payment made towards Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits towards redeeming the mortgage, the same has been marked as Ex.P.14 series. As per Ex.P.15, guarantee deed, the first defendant, stood as surety for the loan amount obtained by D3 and D4, the document was signed by the first defendant in the presence of witnesses and before the notary public. Similarly, Ex.P.16 is a document signed by the first defendant in the presence of witnesses and notary public on 28.12.1998, wherein she has admitted that the mortgage amount towards Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits was Rs.5,50,000/- and also authorised the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage by remitting the said amount on her behalf, though the receipt given by Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits under Ex.P.19 is only for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. Ex.P.14 series and Ex.P.16, document executed by the first defendant and the other evidence available on record clearly establish that the suit claim as against the defendants 1, 3 and 4.
20. The first defendant has raised a defence that there is no cause of action against her and according to he, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In view of the documents and the evidence available on record, the plaintiff has established that there is cause of action against the defendants 1, 3 and 4. The first defendant has also admitted all her signatures available in the documents, though the documents were signed in the presence of witnesses and notary public. However, she has raised a defence saying that the signatures were obtained from her in blank papers. It is clear from the evidence that the first defendant has raised a defence, which is self-contradictory and cannot be accepted and the same is against the Indian Evidence Act, as the oral evidence cannot impeach the documentary evidence. The first defendant has admitted her signature available in various documents marked on the side of the plaintiff and there is evidence to show that she affixed her signatures in the presence of witnesses and notary public. The evidence available on record show that the plaintiff redeemed the property, pursuant to the agreement signed by the first defendant by making payments to Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits and also redeemed the property, hence, the first defendant is not entitled to raise an unsustainable defence saying that she had signed only in the blank papers. Hence, Issues 4 and 5 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1, 3 and 4.
21. Issue No.6 : The defendants have also raised a plea that the plaintiff is not a registered firm. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff has stated that it is a registered firm carrying on business at No.1, 10th Lane, N.N.Garden, Old Washermanper, Chennai 21. The plaintiff has also adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff is a registered firm. There is no contra evidence on the side of the defendants to show that the plaintiff is not a registered firm to maintain the suit in the name of the firm. Having admitted that the plaintiff is a registered firm, the defendants 1,3 and 4 have entered into the agreements with the plaintiff, hence, they are estopped from raising a defence against their admission. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is a registered firm and as such, the suit filed by the firm is legally maintainable.
22. Issue Nos. 7 & 8 : The defendants have raised a defence that the alleged mortgage by the first defendant in favour of Sree Dhanalakshmi Tade Credits was not in force, hence, the plaintiff cannot claim any amount, based on the redemption of the mortgage of the property. The first defendant has gone to the extent of saying that she had redeemed the property from Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, however, the first defendant has not produced any supporting document to show that she had redeemed the property. The defendants 3 and 5 remained absent and were set exparte. As per Exs.P.17, 14 series and 16, the plaintiff has established the fact that the first defendant had authorised the plaintiff to redeem the property mortgaged by her with Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits. Under Ex.P.16, it has been categorically stated that the amount due and payable to redeem the mortgage was Rs.5,50,000/-. Though she has disputed the page numbers 1 and 2 in Ex.P.7, on the ground that her signature is available only in the third and last page. It is seen that Ex.P.16 is sufficient to show that the amount payable towards the redemption of mortgage was Rs.5,50,000/-. Under Ex.P.14 series is the receipts given by Sree Dhanalakshmi Trade Credits, whereby the plaintiff has redeemed the property.
23. The plaintiff has also produced the documents, that were entrusted by the first defendant to the said mortgagee at the time of mortgage. Therefore, the plea of the first defendant that there was no subsisting mortgage and that the mortgage was redeemed by her is baseless, unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff has clearly established that as per the agreement and authorisation by the first defendant, the mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiff. Further, there is no misjoinder of cause of action as stated by the first defendant, hence, issues 7 and 8 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1, 3 and 4.
24. Issue No.9 : In view of the findings given for the issues 1 to 8, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for against the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and to bring the mortgaged property for sale, to realise the decree amount with interest and costs. However, the suit against the second defendant is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the suit is decreed against the defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of filing of plaint till the date of decree and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., till the date of realisation. The suit against the second defendant is dismissed, since the claim against the second defendant is not established. Time for payment is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment and Decree. If the amount is not paid within the time limit specified, the plaintiff is entitled to bring the schedule mentioned property for sale and realise the amount with interest and costs.
24-11-2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvn S.TAMILVANAN, J tsvn Judgment in C.S.No.730 of 2000 24-11-2009