The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
According to the plaintiff, in the first week of August 2011 when he met his friend T.T.Suresh, one Ponnarasu was also present and during their discussion, the said Ponnarasu informed the plaintiff is that his close relative, the second defendant herein is doing very good business in Chennai Port and he was in financial crunch. So, if the plaintiff invests, he can earn good profit. Subsequently, when the plaintiff met the second defendant, he induced him to invest money in his business agreeing to divide the profit in the ratio of 70:30, i.e., 70% for the plaintiff and 30% for the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff would further state that between 18.08.2011 and 05.10.2011, he paid rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs to the second defendant. But, later he came to know that the second defendant is playing fraud on the plaintiff. Therefore, he requested him to give back the amount. Pursuant to the conversation on 15.10.2011, the second defendant issued a cheque dated 24.10.2011 for Rs.1 Crore and 50 lakhs, but it was not presented immediately due to the request of the second defendant. Since the plaintiff was cheated, a complaint dated 19.11.2011 was lodged against the second defendant with Thiruvottiyur Police Station and now, the criminal case is pending.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the following documents as Exs.P1 to P20 as documentary evidence in order to prove the suit claim:-
1) Ex.P1 is the GRT Thangamaligai Tax Invoice Bill No.193676, dated 28.08.2011
2) Ex.P2 is the GRT Thangamaligai Tax Invoice Bill No.216571, dated 17.09.2011
3) Ex.P3 is the GRT Thangamaligai Tax Invoice Bill No.221135, 221136, 221139, 221141 (4 Nos), dated 21.09.2011
4) Ex.P4 is the copy of GRT Thangamaligai Tax Invoice Bill No.221158, dated 22.09.2011
5) Ex.P5 is the sale deed in favour of Nagarajan, dated 27.09.2011
6) Ex.P6 is the GRT Thangamaligai Tax Invoice Bill No.240028, dated 05.10.2011
7) Ex.P7 is the cheque bearing Nos.139387, dated 24.10.2011 for Rs.1,50,00,000/-
8) Ex.P8 is the agreement of sale in favour of V.Nagarajan, dated 02.11.2011
9) Ex.P9 is the copy of Merhantile Bank Ltd & ICICI Bank Account statement of Mr.Muthukrishnan, dated 02.11.2011
10) Ex.P10 is the Crime No.1409 of 2011 filed against Nagarajan and others in Tiruvattur H8 Police Station, dated 19.11.2011
11) Ex.P11 is copy of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Account statement of V.Nagaraj, for the period from 01.08.2011 to 30.11.2011, dated 13.12.2011
12) Ex.P12 is the Letter sent by Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., to Tamil Nadu Merchandile Bank, dated 28.03.2012
13) Ex.P13 is the Letter sent by Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank Ltd. to V.Muthukrishnan, dated 28.03.2012
14) Ex.P14 is the Sale deed in favour of Mr.Poreselvam, dated 05.06.2013
15) Ex.P15 is the Legal notice sent by plaintiff to the defendant, dated 11.08.2014
16) Ex.P16 is the Returned cover dated 20.08.2014
17) Ex.P17 is the Statement of accounts
18) Ex.P18 is the RC Book of Pajero Car Registration No.TN 72 AW 0055, dated 19.09.2011
19) Ex.P19 is the payment details of Pajero car registration No.TN 72 AW 0055, dated 19.09.2011
20) Ex.P20 is the sale deed in favour of Mrs.V.Leela, dated 04.03.2011
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff has proved his case and the Suit will have to be decreed.
4. It is alleged that the second defendant from and out of the amount paid by the plaintiff purchased jewels, car and other properties in the name of his wife mother and relatives. The cheque got dishonoured on 28.03.2012 for the reason of account closed. The pre-suit notice dated 11.08.2014 calling upon the defendants to pay the amount was also returned. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,03,45,000/- (Two Crores Three Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand only) and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to pay interest to the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,00,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for declaration that the sale deed dated 05.06.2013 registered as Document No.314 of 2013 on the file of the District Registrar, North Madras executed by the second defendant in favour of the third respondent is sham and nominal, and to pay the cost of the suit.
5. The defendants were set-exparte on 17.10.2016. The said position continued as of now. Taking into consideration, the pleadings, the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P20, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved his case and the Suit is liable to be decreed and accordingly, the Suit stands decreed with cost.
30/01/2017 r n s K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
r n s To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
C.S.No.25 of 2015 30/01/2017 http://www.judis.nic.in