Dismissed¶54

N.Kamalakanni v. Mythili

Madras HC9 Apr 2025CRP/806/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, P.T. Asha J., 09-04-2025, CRP No. 806 of 2025 — revision dismissed; refusal of leave to defend in summary suit upheld. Keywords: leave to defend; summary suit; unregistered mortgage deed; Ex.R5 reply notice; LICHFL loan; Rs.7,80,000 claim at 24% interest; Rs.1,00,000 principal repaid; forcible taking of title deeds unsupported; attempt to protract proceedings; Section 115 CPC; I.A.No.14208 of 2017 in O.S.No.4328 of 2017; VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

None; the refusal of leave to defend was upheld, the civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected C.M.P. No.4721 of 2025 was closed. ¶54

N.Kamalakanni Vs Mythili — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the refusal of leave to defend was upheld, the civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected C.M.P. No.4721 of 2025 was closed.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/defendant was entitled to leave to defend the summary suit unconditionally, i.e., whether the trial court rightly rejected her leave-to-defend application in I.A.No.14208 of 2017 in O.S.No.4328 of 2017.

¶20

Court's answer

In her reply notice (Ex.R5) the defendant admitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards principal had been repaid and had demanded return of the title document so as to avail a loan from LICHFL to discharge her liability to the plaintiff — admissions inconsistent with her pleaded defence.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The defendant's claim that the plaintiff forcibly took away the title deeds had no evidentiary support; coupled with the plaintiff's possession of the original document, the court found she was only attempting to protract the proceedings by making statements contrary to the documents.

¶4

Key takeaways

The learned trial Judge had elaborately considered the evidence and rightly rejected the leave-to-defend application; this Court saw no reason to hold otherwise and accordingly dismissed the civil revision petition.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (S.115 CPC) by the defendant against the rejection of her application for leave to defend a summary suit (O.S.No.4328 of 2017, VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai) for recovery of Rs.7,80,000 with interest at 24% per annum — DISMISSED. The defendant's reply notice (Ex.R5) showed she had sought return of the title document to avail a loan from LICHFL to discharge her liability to the plaintiff and had admitted repayment of Rs.1,00,000 towards principal; her plea that the title deeds were forcibly taken away found no evidentiary support. With the plaintiff in possession of the original document, the court held the defence was merely an attempt to protract the proceedings by statements contrary to the documents, saw no reason to differ from the trial judge's elaborate consideration, and upheld the refusal of leave to defend. No costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

¶1

CRP No. 806 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

CRP No. 806 of 2025 and

¶7

CMP No.4721 of 2025

¶8

N.Kamalakanni

¶9

W/o.Nathamuni, No.15/18, Kannabiran Koil Street, Peravallur, Chennai - 600 082.

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

Mythili W/o.Marimuthu, No.170/1, 13th Street, Karunanidhi Salai, Vyasarpadi, Chennai - 600039.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.14208 of 2017 in O.S.No.4328 of 2017 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

CRP No. 806 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner(s) :Mr.V.Manisekaran

¶18

For Respondent (s) :Not served

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The defendant is the petitioner before this court challenging the dismissal

¶21

of the application seeking leave to defend the suit unconditionally.

¶22

The facts in brief are set out herein below:

¶23

2.1 The respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.4328 of 2017 as a

¶24

summary suit seeking recovery of Rs.7,80,000/- together with interest at the rate

¶25

of 24% per annum. The said amount is being claimed as a loan amount, which

¶26

has been given by the respondent/plaintiff to the defendant for discharging her family loan and also for her son's education. The loan document was also executed by the petitioner/defendant and she had deposited the original deed of

¶27

sale dated 13.02.2002 standing in her name and she had promised to deposit her

¶28

property's title deeds as security. Since the payments were not made, the respondent/plaintiff has come forward to file the suit in question as summary

¶29

suit.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CRP No. 806 of 2025

¶32

2.2 The petitioner/defendant had taken out an application for leave to

¶33

defend and the ground upon which, leave was sought is that the transaction is a

¶34

mortgage and the document in question is an unregistered document.

¶35

2.3 The petitioner/defendant would submit that the mortgage deed,

¶36

which is the suit document, is void and unsustainable in the eye of law, since it

¶37

is an unregistered one. She would further submit that she has not borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff

¶38

had taken away the title deeds illegally by barging into her house. She would

¶39

also deny the execution of the loan bond and would submit that she has repaid

¶40

the borrowed amount in full and she had no balance and therefore, this is a

¶41

trivial issue and she should be granted leave to defend the same.

¶42

2.4 The learned Judge has rejected the application and refused grant of

¶43

leave to defend to the petitioner/defendant. Aggrieved by the same, above civil

¶44

revision petition has been filed.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

CRP No. 806 of 2025

¶47

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials

¶48

on record.

¶49

The respondent/plaintiff had marked documents. The learned

¶50

Judge, on perusal of the exhibits R1 to R5 found that in the reply notice (Ex.R5), the petitioner/defendant had demanded return of the document to her immediately in order to enable her to avail loan from LICHFL, as the same would enable her to discharge her liability to the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant had stated in the said exhibit that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/principal had been repaid. Though the petitioner/defendant had stated that the documents were forcibly taken away by the respondent/plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove the same. This admission coupled with the admission that the respondent/plaintiff has the possession of the original document, would clearly go to show that the petitioner/defendant is only attempting to protract the proceedings by making statements contrary to the documents. The learned Judge has elaborately considered the evidence before him and has passed order rejecting the application filed seeking leave to defend. I see no reason to hold

¶51

otherwise.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

CRP No. 806 of 2025

¶54

Hence, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected

¶55

C.M.P. is closed.

¶56

09-04-2025