Defendant appealed a decree refunding Rs.23,30,666/- with 24% interest to plaintiffs whose specific performance suit failed. Holding that discharge must be proved by the party pleading it and the unproved endorsement in Ex.B2 could not establish Rs.12 lakh repayment, the court modified the decree to refund only the admitted Rs.15,00,000/- with reasonable interest.
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.No.927 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.No.927 of 2020
G.Nallammal W/o.Ganesan
..Appellant Vs
1.S.Thangavel 2.T.Dhanalakshmi
..Respondents
Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran for R1 and R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Challenging the decree of the trial Court directing payment of
Rs.23,30,666/- with interest at the rate of 9% on the principal amount of
__________ Page1 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
15,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and for the remaining amount, 6% till the date of realization, the defendant has filed the appeal.
__________ Page2 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
Page3 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
(PW2), broker of the plaintiffs, misrepresented to the defendant that those documents are executed only towards the loan transaction. Hence, it is not disputed by the defendant about the receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- in the agreement. The further stand of the defendant is that she has repaid Rs.12,00,000/- towards the loan amount and an endorsement to that effect has also been made in Ex.B2. The trial Court decreed the suit only for refund of advance amount with interest and negatived the relief of specific performance.
Page4 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
of PW1, there is no other document to prove the same. Even when Ex.B2 is confronted with PWs 1 and 2, they denied the same. No attempt whatsoever has been made by the defendant to show that the document contained the signature of either PW1 or PW2. In the absence of any evidence to show that the endorsement has been made either by PW1 or PW2, the contention of the defendant that she has repaid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- cannot be countenanced. Once the plea of discharge is taken by a party, the onus lies on the party taking such a plea to prove the same. On a careful perusal of entire evidence, it seen that the defendant has not discharged the burden. In view of the same, now the plea that is now raised in the appeal cannot be countenanced.
Page5 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
Rs.23,30,666/- including 24% interest, which is in our view is not proper. The trial Court ought to have granted the alternative relief for the admitted sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with reasonable interest. Accordingly we modify the decree of the trial Court as follows:
i) That the defendant is directed to refund Rs.15,00,000/- [Rupees Fifteen
Lakhs only] admittedly received under Exs.A1 and A2 (registered agreements) dated 22.06.2015 and 17.06.2016 respectively with interest at the rate of 9% on Rs.10,00,000/- received on 22.06.2015 under Ex.A1-Sale Agreement and Rs.5 lakhs received on 17.06.2016 under Ex.A2-Sale Agreement.
The appeal is disposed of with the above modification. There shall be no order as to costs.
(N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 10.07.2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
To
__________ Page6 of 7
A.S.No.927 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gpa
A.S.No.927 of 2020
10.07.2026
__________ Page7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendant proved repayment/discharge of the Rs.15,00,000/- received under registered sale agreements Exs.A1 and A2?
Whether interest at 24% on the advance amount was properly granted as alternative relief?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Nallammal
S.Thangavel
T.Dhanalakshmi
N. Sathish Kumar
M. Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
