The Madras High Court dismissed the first appeal challenging a rent decree but allowed the second appeal setting aside costs imposed on a tenant. The Court held the defendant failed to prove the transaction was a loan.
Deposited costs imposed on the second appellant in A.S.(MD).No.192 of 2021 set aside; First Appeal in A.S.(MD).No.75 of 2019 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD).No.3819 of 2023
A.S(MD).No.75 of 2019
P.R.Subramaniya Raja ...Appellant/1st Defendant
Vs.
1.K.Pandaram
2.P.Annamalai Ammal ...Respondents 1 and 2/Plaintiffs
3.The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Tirunelveli Branch,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2. ...3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
_________ Page 1 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.A.Balaji for R1 and R2 Mr.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R3 A.S(MD).No.192 of 2021 The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tirunelveli Branch, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2. ...Appellant/2nd Defendant Vs. 1.K.Pandaram 2.P.Annamalai Ammal ...Respondents 1 and 2/Plaintiffs 3. P.R.Subramaniya Raja ...3rd Respondent/1st Defendant
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, so far as imposing cost on the appellant/2nd defendant is concerned.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.A.Balaji for R1 and R2 Mr.R.J.Karthick
_________ Page 2 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
for R3
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These first appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree
passed by the III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, in O.S.No.22 of 2012.
the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of declaration and consequential direction to pay the arrears of rent by the second defendant.
(i) The plaintiffs had purchased a property from the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs
_________ Page 3 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
only). The consideration has been paid through the cheques of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. The sale was registered on 22.12.2011 and the possession was also handed over to the plaintiffs. However, the second defendant, who was in possession of the property as tenant, despite notice, has not paid the arrears of rent. Hence, the suit has been filed.
(ii) The first defendant took a stand that he never intended to sell the property. He received a sum of Rs.37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs only) from the plaintiff only towards loan transaction and has also started in making the payment, since he has not intended for selling the property and it is only a loan transaction. The sale deed was executed towards the said loan amount. The contention of the plaintiffs that the first defendant has sold the property to them, has been disputed by the first defendant. The further contention is that though signature of the first defendant was found on the backside of the cheques, he has not received any consideration. The second defendant filed a statement to the effect that on 04.01.2011, he has received a communication from the first defendant
_________ Page 4 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
that he has pledged the said property to the plaintiffs as security for a period of three months and within the said period, he will recover the property and has directed the second defendant to pay the rent to the first defendant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
(i) whether the plaintiff are entitled for declaration that
the plaintiff's are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?
(ii) whether the plaintiff are entitled for a consequential
permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men, agents etc., not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's over the plaint scheduled property in any manner?
(iii) whether the plaintiff are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiff's until the 2nd defendant deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiff's?
_________ Page 5 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
(iv) to what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?
A.S(MD).No.75 of 2019 would submit that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, the first defendant had never intended to sell the property, deed has been executed for loan transaction. However, he
has not received any consideration and the consideration was also not proved. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence fully.
A.S(MD).No.192 of 2021 would submit that the trial Court ought not to
have imposed costs on the second defendant without making any specific reference or finding in the judgment as to how the appellant is responsible
_________ Page 6 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
for paying cost to the plaintiffs, especially, when there was no default attributable on the appellant.
both appeals would submit that except mere denial of sale, no material was brought on record. Hence, the defendants cannot go against the contents of the documents.
for consideration:
discharged his burden of proof in establishing the stand
of the loan transaction?
(ii) Whether the sale is not supported by any
consideration? and
(iii) Whether the cost imposed on the second
defendant is proper?”
Page 7 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
_________ Page 8 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
the plaintiffs, there was no necessity for the first defendant to inform the second defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiffs for a period of three months. Having admitted the execution of the sale deed, now it cannot be said that it is only a mere loan transaction. Even to establish the same, no other evidence or material was brought on record. Therefore, once the execution of a sale deed is admitted, the first defendant now cannot take different stand that it is loan transaction. Once he has taken such plea, onus lies on him to establish the said transaction. No contra evidence was also brought on record except mere denial. Hence, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the first defendant.
_________ Page 9 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
defendant, namely, the appellant in A.S.No.192 of 2021 is set aside.
A.S.(MD).No.75 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.04.2023
ssb Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
To
Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
_________ Page 10 of 11
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ssb
A.S(MD).Nos.75 of 2019 and 192 of 2021
03.04.2023
_________ Page 11 of 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant successfully established that a loan transaction existed instead of a sale of the property?
Whether the imposition of costs on the second appellant was proper given the dispute regarding the transaction?
Whether the first appeal challenging the rent and injunction decree and the second appeal challenging costs should be allowed or dismissed?
P.R.Subramaniya Raja
1.K.Pandaram
2.P.Annamalai Ammal
3.The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tirunelveli Branch
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
