M.Balaji vs Perim Janardhana Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 09.12.2019

PRONOUNCED ON : 08.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Civil Suit No.941 of 2010

M.Balaji ... Plaintiff

Vs

1.Perim Janardhana Rao

2.M/s.JAY AR Enterprises, Rep. By its Partner, Perim Janardhana Rao, No.7, N.S.Krishnan Street, Eswaran Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

3.Perim Janardhana Rao

4.K.Rajendra Reddy ... Defendants

Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules

r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., for directing the defendants jointly and

severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,66,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest

@ 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.79,00,000/- from date of

plaint till realization and to pay the cost of the suit.

1/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

For Plaintiff :Mr.Sarath Chandran for Mr.S.V.Kirubanandam

For Defendants :Mr.V.Balasubramanian

JUDGMENT

The plaint averment in brief:-

Mr.M.Balaji, the plaintiff herein is a businessman in real estate since

2004. He had entered into agreement with land owners in and around

Bangalore advancing money to them. The first defendant a businessman

dealing with leather products at Chennai in the name of M/s.JAY AR

Enterprises, a partnership firm approached the plaintiff expressing his

interest in purchasing those properties. On 09.09.2004, the first defendant

purchased 50% interest in three acres of land in S.No.1, Giddanahalli

Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District through the plaintiff and

gained his trust. Subsequently, the first defendant expressed his interest to

purchase 5 acres 22 ½ guntas of agricultural land in Bidaraguppe Village at

Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, in which, the

plaintiff had already acquired interest. The sale price for the said land was

finalised @ Rs.46 lakhs per acre with condition that the plaintiff should get

permission for converting the usage of the said land from agricultural to non

2/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

agricultural purpose. The plaintiff spent huge money for the said conversion

and also spent heavily on settling the Court dispute among the land owners.

2.Thereafter, the plaintiff arranged for the sale deeds being executed

directly in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff believing the first

defendant paid the sale consideration to the land owners from out of his

personal fund. The plaintiff by issuing post dated cheques got three sale

deeds dated 19.03.2005 and one sale deed dated 11.04.2005 registered in

the name of the first defendant directly. Based on the resolution passed by

the second defendant firm cheque of the partnership firm was issued by the

first defendant to purchase the above said land in his personal name. In the

said transaction, the first defendant is liable to pay Rs.2,56,00,000/-

whereas, he paid only a sum of Rs.1,77,00,000/- and the balance sum of

Rs.79,00,000/- was due and payable by the plaintiff.

3.The entire transaction on behalf of the first defendant was done

through his Power Agent Krishnamurthy. When the plaintiff demanded the

balance of Rs.79,00,000/-, Krishnamurthy the Power Agent of the first

defendant executed a letter of acknowledgment dated 15.04.2006 in favour

of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the first defendant issued a cheque from the

Bank account maintained by the second defendant for a sum of

3/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Rs.79,00,000/- dated 30.10.2007 drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, Haddows Road

Branch, Chennai. On 15.04.2008, the plaintiff presented the cheque for

collection. The same was dishonoured with endorsement “Insufficient fund”.

Notice was issued to the first defendant calling upon him to pay the dues

covered under the said cheque. Denying the liability, the first defendant sent

a reply dated 30.05.2008. Therefore, the plaintiff has initiated proceedings

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prosecute the first

defendant before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bangalore, in C.C.No.19342 of 2008 and the same is pending.

4.Thus, the plaintiff is entitle to receive a sum of Rs 79,00,000/- with

interest at the rate of 18% pa. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs

1,21,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the

date of recovery on the principle sum of Rs. 79,00,000/-.

5.The Written statement averment in brief:-

The defendants deny the plaint averments in toto. According to them,

the suit claim is barred by limitation since, the alleged cause of action took

place between 19.03.2005 and 11.04.2005. The cheque dated 30.10.2007

is not a fresh promise to pay a time barred debt and it will not give a

4/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

supporting point for limitation. V.Krishnamurthy who was the erstwhile

Power Agent and employee under the first defendant has stolen the cheque

leaf from the first defendant. On the criminal complaint initiated against the

plaintiff and Krishnamurthy before Central Crime Branch, Chennai, they were

arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The said criminal case is pending

before the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. Further, the defendants had

already instituted suit before the Civil Court at Tirupathi against

Krishnamurthy and the plaintiff for surreptitiously withdrawing the

defendants' money for purchase of property at Tirupathi in the name of the

plaintiff. The alleged letter of acknowledgment dated 15.04.2006 executed

by Krishnamurthy cannot be the basis for any claim against the defendants

in the absence of any proof of money payable by the defendants.

6.The criminal case initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act

against the first defendant though initially ended in conviction before the trial

court, the judgment of the trial Court was later reversed in the appeal by the

Appellate Court and therefore, there is no enforceable debt against the

defendants. The plaintiff along with Krishnamurthy who is the estranged

employee of the first defendant had illegally withdrawn lakhs of rupees from

the first defendant. There is no document to show that the plaintiff had

interest in 5 acres 22 ½ guntas of agriculture land in Bidaraguppe Village at

5/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and he spent

heavily towards conversion of the said agricultural land into non agricultural

land. Further, the allegation of fixing the price of the land @ 46 lakhs per

acre is not true. The claim of the plaintiff is false and is not entitled for any

interest as claimed.

7.Based on the above averments, the following issues were framed by

this Court on 18.09.2014:-

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,21,66,000/- from the defendants along with interest at 18% p.a on the principal sum of Rs.79,00,000/- from the date of plaint ?

2.Whether the suit claim is sustainable on speculation as the plaintiff is a speculator and middle man in real estate business ?

3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4.Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?

5.Whether the dishonoured cheque will give raise to

6/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

a cause of action without any specific promise to pay a time barred debt under Section 25 (3) of Indian Contract Act ?

6.Whether the suit claim is sustainable in view of the provision of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the presumption contemplated under section 139 is sufficient to prove the claim in the suit without any acceptable evidence to show that the defendants owe the suit claim to the plaintiff ?

7.Whether the claim of the plaintiff is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of any legally enforceable claim to sustain in the suit ?

8.To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?”

8.To substantiate their respective claim, the plaintiff and the

defendants have examined one witness each. On behalf of the plaintiff, 69

documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.69. On behalf of the defendants, 21

documents were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.21.

9.The plaintiff, M.Balaji was examined as P.W.1. According to him, the

first defendant is the partner of second defendant firm. Defendants 3 and 4

are the other partners. The first defendant approached him for purchase of

7/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

5 acres 22 guntas of land at Bangalore in which, the plaintiff had acquired

interest and right by entering into agreement with the land owners. Though

initially, he was not interested to the proposal of the first defendant to sell

the lands to the defendant later, agreed for it, on the specific understanding

that the plaintiff will be paid Rs.46 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, he acted

upon investing his money by advancing sale consideration and for other

expenses to get conversion of land usage, settle the litigation between the

land owners. He facilitated the first defendant to purchase of the properties

and get it registered in the name of the first defendant directly.

10.According to the plaintiff, he entered into a sale agreement with

one B.Chennakesava on 05.11.2004 who is the absolute owner of 7 ½

guntas of land situated at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road,

Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. In the said agreement,

B.Chennakesava for himself and on behalf of the adjoining land owners

falling under S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur

Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District agreed to sell the land @

Rs.41 lakhs per acre and executed the sale agreement marked as Ex P-3. In

the said agreement for sale between the plaintiff and B.Chennakesava, the

parties have agreed for transfer of 5 acres 22 ½ guntas land for a sale

consideration of Rs 41 lakhs per acre. The plaintiff has advanced a sum of

8/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Rs.1,00,000/- to B.Chennakesava. The plaintiff contends that he invested his

money for conversion of the said land into non agricultural land and to settle

the dispute between the land owners. He arranged for execution of the sale

deeds by the respective land owners directly in the name of the first

defendant showing the guide line value of the properties which was far below

the agreed value. The land owners accordingly, executed four sale deeds

which were marked as Exs.P.5 to P.8 respectively. The sale consideration

agreed by the first defendant for the said land was Rs.2,56,00,000/-

whereas, he paid only Rs.1,77,00,000/-. For the balance sum of

Rs.79,00,000/- one Krishnamurthy the Power Agent of the first defendant

gave an acknowledgment letter dated 15.04.2006 (Ex.P.10). Later, the first

defendant gave the cheque dated 17.03.2007 drawn in the name of the

account of the second defendant, for a sum of Rs.79,00,000/- (Ex.P.11).

When the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for want

of sufficient fund. Criminal case was initiated for dishonouring the cheque

after issuing notice. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff is marked as

Ex.P.13 and the reply of the defendants is marked as Ex.P.14.

11.The criminal case initiated for dishonouring of cheque ended in

conviction on 16.06.2009 and the order copy is marked as Ex.P.16. The

bank statements of the plaintiff between 01/04/2004 and 01/07/2005 to

9/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

show that he has paid money to some of the land owners namely

Sriramaiah, Narayanappa and Gangadaran is Ex.P.17. The statement of

accounts for the period 10/12/2004 to 15/04/2005 to show payments made

by the plaintiff to the land owners Chennakesava, Naryaanappa and

Sriramaiah and to the Sub-Registrar, Anekal is marked as Ex P-42. These

documents were relied to prove that the plaintiff was involved in the land

purchased in the name of the first defendant through his power agent

Krishnamurthy and he has financially contributed for the transaction.

12.To prove that in the earlier transaction in respect of the property

at Giddanahalli village in which the first defendant purchased the land on

09/09/2004 and after converting into plots sold it for huge profit to third

parties, the plaintiff relies on the sale deeds Exs.P-18, P-19, P-20 and P-21,

to prove that the first defendant has taken inconsistent stand about the

authroisation given by him to his power agent Krishnamurthy and the

entrustment of signed cheques to him, the plaintiff relies on Ex P-22 and Ex

P 23.

13.The copy of the FIR dated 20/08/2007 given by the first defendant

against his power agent Krishnamurthy and the plaintiff is Ex P-22. In this

complaint the first defendant has alleged that Kirshnamurthy along with

10/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Balaji ( Plaintiff ) had cheated him to the tune of Rs. 1.70 crores by

misleading him that they have purchased land at Kanakapura, Bangalore for

Rs 65 lakhs in the name of the firsr defendant,but actually they did not

pruchased any land at Kanakapura. The first defendant has also alleged that

the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy had taken away Rs 2,56,00,000/- from him

for the purchase of the properties at Sharjapur Road registered in his him,

whereas on verification from the vendors he came to know that the they

were paid only Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.

14.The plaintiff relies on this document to show that the first

defendant has admitted in his complaint that the said Krishnamurthy is the

working partner in KVL Associates, Chennai which is the sister concern of the

second defendant firm. Further krishnomurthy was authorised by the first

defendant to negotiate with the parties for purchase of property and he has

executed a power of attorney deed in his favour for that purpose.

15.The stop payment letter given by the first defendant is marked as

Ex P:-23. In this letter the first defendant informed ABN AMRO Bank,

Nugambakkam Branch that 8 of his signed cheques are missing from his

office. To avoid misuse of the cheques he instruct the bank to stop payment.

The Cheque bearing No. 401681 ( Ex P-11) is not one among the 8 cheques

11/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

referred in this letter dated 14/07/2008.

16.The counsel for the plaintiff pointing out that Ex P-11 cheque

bearing No. 401681 dated 30/10/2007 was presented for collection by the

plaintiff on 15/4/2008. The said cheque was returned by the banker with the

memo Ex P-12 intimating that the cheque is returned unpaid for funds

insufficiency. Therefore the plaintiff caused legal notice (Ex P-13) to the first

defendant on 14/05/2008. The defendant in his reply Ex P-14 has stated

that the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy were his agents for purchase of lands in

Bangalore and sell it to third parties for higher value after some period. In

the course of the said dealing, he being a frequent traveller abroad, gave

signed 20 cheque leaves bearing Numbers 401071 to 401090 to the Plaintiff

and Krishnamurthy to withdrew money from the second defendant firm

account for effecting payment to the land owners. In the criminal complaint

given to the Central Crime Branch on 20/08/2007 against the plaintiff and

Krishnamurthy, the defendant has not wisphered about entrustment of

signed blank cheques to the plaintiff or to Krishnamurthy. In Ex P-23 dated

14/07/2008, the letter intimating the banker to stop payment, the first

defendant has stated that the signed blank cheques are missing and to avoid

misuse payment should be stopped. The next day the first defendant has

given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police alleging that the plaintiff

12/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

( BALAJI) and Krishnamurthy hatched conspiracy to misuse one of the blank

cheque bearing No. 401681 dated 30/10/2007 drawn on ABN AMRO BANK,

Chennai which was issued for purchase of land during the year 2004-2005,

filed it for Rs 79,00,000/-, presented the same and got it dishonoured. The

learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that having admitted the liablity

and issued cheque for Rs. 79,00,000/- just to deprive the plaintiff, the first

defendant has taken different and inconsistent stands at different point of

time only to be exposed of his falsehood.

17.Ex P-25, Ex-P-26, Ex P-30 to Ex P-33, Ex P-61 , Ex P-64 to Ex P-65,

are documents relating to the proceedings in connection with the private

complaint initiated before the XVI Addl. CMM at Bangalore in CC 19342/2008

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the cheque

marked as Ex P-11. The said criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff ended in

conviction in C.C.19342/2008 on 18/11/2010 (judgment copy is marked as

Ex P-33). On Appeal before the Session Judge, Bangalore in C.A. 878/2010

the conviction was set aside on 21/07/2012. ( judgment copy is marked as

Ex P-67). The plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the appellate court has

preferred appeal before the High Court, Bangalore in Cri.Appeal No.

1110/2012.( Appeal copy is marked as Ex P-61).

18.The documents connected to the civil proceedings initiated by the

13/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

first defendant against Balaji (the plaintiff herein), Ravoori Swarnalatha w/o

Balaji and Krishnamurthy before the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in

O.S 107/2007 is relied by the plaintiff and they are marked as exhibits P-29,

Ex P-34 to 40. The pith and substance of the said suit is that Balaji (the

plaintiff in this suit), his wife Ravoori Swarnalatha and krishnamurthy

misappropriated the money of the first defendant and purchase property at

Tirupathi, hence prayer to declare the properties purchased in the name of

the Balaji and his wife were from out of the amounts received from the

Perim Janarthan Rao ( the first defendant herein).

19.The orders passed by the Government of Karnataka permitting the

conversion of the agricultural land which are the subject matter of the

transactions under consideration in the present suit is marked as Ex P-41.

The plaintiff relies this document to show he had a role in getting the

conversion orders and for which he has spent money.

20.The Andra Bank, Vidyapeetha Circle Branch, Bangalore in which the

plaintiff maintains account had given the letter dated 08/09/2012 certifying

that the plaintiff had purchased 5 pay orders from his account as on

13/03/2005 out of which 4 were purchased in favour of Sub-Registrar,

Anekal and one in favour of Sreeramulu. Later the plaintiff has cancelled one

14/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

pay order of Rs 2,25,600/- purchased in favour of Sub-Registrar, Anekal.

The plaintiff contention is that these are the investment he made on behalf

of the first defendant to purchase the lands covering the sale deeds Ex P-5

to P-8.

21.The statement of bank accounts of the defendants in ABN Amro

Bank, Indian Bank and Indian Overseas Bank are marked as Ex P-47 to 52.

The statement of Bank Accounts of M/s Nimeesha Leathers Exports Ltd, M/s

KVL Associates the cheques issued by Krishnamurthy for KVL Associates for

purchase of demand drafts in the name of the vendors and cheques issued

by the 2nd defendant are exhibits P-54 and P-55.

22.To show that after purchase of the properties under sale deeds Ex

P-5 to Ex P-8 the his power agent Krishnamurthy, the first defendant has

appointed one Sri Rama Bala Subba Rayudu as his power agent on

17/03/2007 under Ex P-57.

23.The Sub Registrar has refixed the guideline value of the said

property after conversion and issued certificate of valuation and endorsment

on 21/03/2011. The plaintiff rely on this document marked as exhibit P-59

since the endorsement certificate is addressed to the plaintiff.

15/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

24.The statement of account in respect of the 2nd defendant firm

maintained at ABN Amro Bank, Chennai is Ex P-47. This document indicates

that the cheques bearing No. 401673 for Rs 9,50,000/-, Cheque No. 401676

for Rs 5,00,000/- and cheque No. 401683 for Rs 5,00,000/- were issued by

the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and same were encashed by the

plaintiff.

25.The learned counsel for the plaintiff referring the above documents

and explaining the purpose for which those documents are relied, submitted

that there can be no doubt about the facts that the first defendant is one of

the partners of the second defendant firm, the second respondent firm has

resolved to utilise the funds of the firm to purchase lands in the name of the

first defendant, the cheques of the second defendant firm were used for the

purchase of the lands at Bangalore.

26.The first defendant though initially denied the status of

Krishnamurthy, admits in his complaint to police commissioner and in the

cross examination that Krishnamurthy was his authorised agent and only

through him the sale deeds Ex P-5 to P-8 were got registered. The recitals

in these Exhibits also indicates that Krishnamurthy is the authorised

16/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

representative of the first defendant. While so, the acknowledgment letter

dated 15/04/2006 Ex P-10 given by Krishnamurthy binds the principal and

the first defendant cannot turn around and plead that the act of his agent

does not binds him.

27.Pointing the portion of the DW-1 testimony where the first

defendant has admitted that he started the firm KVL Associates and he

appointed Krishnamurthy as the working partner of the said firm, the learned

counsel for the plaintiff would submit that, this admission positively

disproves the claim of the defendants that the acknowledgment letter Ex P-

10 admitting liablity of Rs 79,00,000/- and the cheque Ex P-11 for

Rs.79,00,000/- were documents created in collusion between the plaintiff

and the said Krishnamurthy. Therefore the learned counsel submits that

there is no reasonable ground to suspect Ex P-10 acknowledgment of debt

and issuance of cheque (Ex P-11) to discharge the debt.

28.Regarding the criminal prosecution initiated under section 138 of NI

Act, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the the present civil

suit for recovery of money has to be independently decided based on the

evidence and preponderance of probabilities. The finding of criminal court

not relevant for deciding the civil suit. The learned counsel relies on the

17/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

judgment of the Supreme court rendered in Seth Ramdayal Jat -vs-

Lakmi Prasad [2009(11) SCC 545] to add emphasis to his submission that

the civil proceedings cannot be determined on the basis of the judgment of

criminal court finding, except statement admitted by the parties which are

relevant subject to sections 21,23, 42 and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act,

29.The learned counsel submit that it has to be reasonable presumed

that a person who was issuing the cheque admits his liability by issuing the

cheque irrespective of the fact whether the cheque is honoured or not. To

buttress this submission he relies upon the judgments:-

1) Rajpathi Prasad -vs Kaushalya Kuer and others ( 1980 SCC

OnLine Pat 107) and

2) Hindustan Apparel Industries -vs- Fair Deal Corporation, New

Delhi ( 2000 SCC Online Guj 177).

and submitted that apart from the letter of the agent Ex P-10, the

dishonoured cheque Ex P-11 independently constitutes direct

acknowledgment of the debt by the defendant.

30.Rebutting the submission of the defendants that the blank cheques

18/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

entrusted to Krishnamurthy for a different purpose was misused by him in

collusion with the plaintiff, the learned counsel submit that, the cheque Ex P-

11 admittedly bears the signature of the first defendant. It is admitted by

the first defendant in the connected proceedings that blank signed cheques

was entrusted by him to Krishnamurthy to pay the sale consideration, broker

commission, registration charges and other incidental expenses. The recital

in Ex P-69 the power of attorney deed dated 14/03/2005 executed by the

first defendant in favour of the said Krishnamurthy empowers the agent to

appear before the Sub-Registrar , Anekal for the presentation of deeds that

would be executed by the owners of the aforesaid lands. The bank account

statements and the letter of the Andra Bank which are marked as Ex P-42,

Ex P-43 and Ex P-44 clearly proves that the part sale consideration to the

vendors and registration charges were paid by the plaintiff from his bank

account. Even assuming only blank cheque was given by the first defendant

it would attract the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, in case if the defendant fails to prove that the cheque was

not issued to discharge of a debt.

31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would state that, the

defendants have not rebutted the said statutory presumption, contrarily, the

plaintiff through the above mentioned documents have established there was

19/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

financial transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and the

plaintiff has contributed his service and money for completion of the

transactions pertaining to the land purchased under Ex P-5 to P-8.

32.Relying upon Bir Singh -vs- Mukesh Kumar [2019(4) SCC 197]

the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is strong presumption

against the defendants which has not been rebutted. Except a bald denial of

debt and fake allegation of misuse of cheque by his agent in collusion with

the plaintiff, there is no cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.

Hence suit to be allowed.

33.In defence, the first defendant has mounted the witness box. 21

documents are marked as defence side exhibits. Ex D-1 to D-5 are civil

proceedings for recovery money initiated against the plaintiff and others by

one Gottipatti Damodara Naidu. Ex D-6 and D-7 are the copy of the criminal

complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C and FIR copy filed by one Narra Jagadish

against the plaintiff and his wife before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathi.

These documents are relied by the defendants to show that the plaintiff is a

financier operating at Tirupathi and had involved in prize chit and money

circulation fraud. Ex D-8 is the letter of acknowledgment purported to have

been given by Krishnamurthy to the first defendant admitting the receipt of

20/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Rs 3,20,45,826/- which is in tune with the auditor's report Ex P-46/-. Ex D-9

FIR in Cr.No. 470/ 2007 on the file of crime branch Chennai is duplication of

Ex P-22. Ex D-10 legal notice under section 138 of NI Act issued by the

plaintiff is duplication of Ex P-13. Ex D-11 reply notice of the defendants

counsel is duplication of Ex P-14. Ex D-12 complaint to Commissioner of

Police, Chennai given by the defendant is duplication of Ex P-24. Ex D-13

stop payment letter of the defendant is duplication of Ex P-23. Ex D-14 and

Ex D-15 are orders of the Madras High Court, granting bail to the plaintiff

and Krishnamurthy in Cr.No. 470/2007. Ex D- 16 is the copy of the

application made by the first defendant before the JM-1, Poonamallee to

furnish copy of the accused statements ( Balaji and Krishnamurthy). Ex P-17

is replica of the complaint Ex D-12 and P-24. Ex D-18 is the final report filed

by CCB, Chennai in Cr.No. 470/2007. Ex D-19 is replica of Ex P-67. Ex D-20

is duplication of Ex P-8 and Ex D-21 is duplication of Ex P- 30.

34.The learned counsel for the defendant s relying upon the testimony

of the first defendant and the documents, contend that believing

Krishnamurthy, blank signed cheques were entrusted to negotiate with the

land owners for purchase of the land covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8. The

plaintiff who was the middleman for the said transaction has received his

remuneration. However he in connivance with the power agent

21/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Krishnamurthy has overdrawn money from the 2nd defendant's bank account

more and above what is payable to the vendors. For the said act of cheating

criminal complaint lodged with Commissioner of Police, Chennai against the

plaintiff and Krishnamurthy. On his complaint, Balaji and Krishnamurthy

were arrested and released on bail by order of the High Court Madras vide

Ex D-15 and D-16. Therefore in connivance with his estranged Power Agent,

Krishnamurthy the blank cheque Ex P-11 was filed up and presented for

collection.

35.The plaintiff initiated private complaint under the Negotiable

Instruments Act in respect of the cheque issued in favour of the plaintiff for a

sum of Rs.79,00,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the defendant.

Later, the Principal City Civil Court and Sessions Judge Bangalore City vide

order dated 21.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2010 (Ex.D.19) has set

aside the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 18.11.2010 convicting

the first defendant. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant further states

across the bar that the further appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the

High Court against the order of acquittal also dismissed by the High Court,

Bangalore.

36.The prime contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is

22/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

that, there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to pay

Rs 46 lakhs per acre in respect of the property covered under the sale deeds

Ex P-5 to P-8. The plaintiff was duly paid for his services and nothing

payable to him. Contrarily the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy (since deceased)

has fraudulently encashed the blank signed cheques entrusted and facing

criminal prosecution. Though the criminal court finding does not bind the civil

proceedings, the admissions and statements made by the parties in the

criminal proceedings are relevant and admissible in evidence in the

subsequent proceedings. In those proceedings the plaintiff has admitted that

he has received more than 19,50,000/- from the defendants. He has also

admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that he had prior

agreement with the land owners except Chennakesava who held only 7 ½

guntas of land.

37.The Learned counsel for the defendant strongly relying upon

section 188 of the Indian Contract Act, submitted that the power of attorney

deed given in favour of Krishnamurthy never authorisied him to borrow

money or acknowledge debts. He was only authorised to carryout the

registration work. Therefore Ex P-10 alleged acknowledgment of debt letter

given by the agent without authorisation is invalid.

38.On considering the rival submissions, this court finds that the

23/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants primarily centres upon

Ex.P.10, the letter of acknowledgment alleged to have been given by

Krishnamurthy, the Power Agent of the first defendant. The content of the

said Exhibit (Ex.P.10) reads as below:-

“Towards purchase of lands through M.Balaji at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road, Bangalore in Sy.Nos.269, 270 and 273.

Extent of land 5 Acres and 22 ½ guntas at the rate of Rs.46 lakhs per acre.

Total amount payable Rs.2,56,00,000/-

Amount paid by way of cheques, costs and DD's Rs.1,77,00,000/- ------------------ Amount due to M.Balaji from P.Janardha Rao Rs.79,00,000/-

K.Krishnamurthy (s/d) G.P.A Holder of P.Janardhan Rao

Bangalore 15-04-2006”

24/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

39.The specific case of the plaintiff is that, he had an understanding

with the land owners to sell 5 acres 22 ½ guntas at the rate of Rs 41 lakhs.

Knowing this the first defendant expressed his desire to buy those land for a

sale consideration @ Rs.46 lakhs per acre. To substantiate this contention

the plaintiff relies the recital in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.3.

40.However, the recital in Ex.P.3 would show that one

B.Chennakesava holding 7 ½ guntas of land has agreed to sell 5 acres of

land @ Rs.41 lakhs per acre in S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe

Village at Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District to the

plaintiff. In this document, Chennakesava claims himself as the

representative of the owners of 5 acres 22 ½ guntas of land. The plaintiff

has not explained how this document could be relied upon for his contention

that he had interest in the entire 5 acres 22 ½ guntas of land situated at

S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road,

Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District when there is no document to link

B.Chennakesava and other owners of 5 acres 22 ½ guntas of land at

S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road,

Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The lack of privity of contract with

other owners, renders a plaintiff case weak. Even assuming that the plaintiff

25/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

have some claim over the property which is covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8 by

virtue of Ex.P.3 agreement of sale, it is an agreement between the plaintiff

and one of the several owners who hold only 7 ½ guntas of land. How this

agreement of sale will bind the remaining owners holding more than 5 acres

of land is unexplained by the plaintiff. Further, the evidence available reveals

that the first defendant has purchased the property directly from the land

owners and got it registered including the portion of the land for which the

plaintiff had entered into agreement of sale with Chennakesava under

Ex.P-3. If at all the plaintiff wants to ascertain his right or interest, before or

the moment sale deeds executed and got registered in favour of the first

defendant he should have challenged the said transaction.

41.Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that

he had any interest or right in respect of properties covering Ex P-5 to P-8

and also the plaintiff has not proved that there was agreement between him

and the defendants to alienate the property at the rate of Rs 46 lakhs per

acre.

42.The counsel for the plaintiff states that Ex in P-10 the agent of the

first respondent has acknowledged the existence of agreement and debt of

26/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Rs 79,00,000/-. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Defendant, to

acknowledge the debt, the agent should have authorisation. In the absence

of authorisation, the act of the agent will not bind the principal.

42.Sections 186 to 188 of the Indian Contract Act, read as below:-

“186. Agent’s authority may be expressed or implied.—The authority of

an agent may be expressed or implied. 55

187. Definitions of express and implied authority.—An authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case; and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case. —An authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case;

and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case." Illustration A owns a shop in Serampor, living himself in Calcutta, and visiting the shop occasionally. The shop is managed by B, and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of A’s funds with A’s knowledge. B has an implied authority from A to order goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop. A owns a shop in Serampor, living himself in Calcutta, and visiting the shop occasionally. The shop is managed by B, and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of A’s funds with A’s knowledge. B has an implied

27/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

authority from A to order goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop."

188. Extent of agent’s authority.—An agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act. —An agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act." An agent having an authority to carry on a business, has authority to do every lawful thing necessary for the purpose, or usually done in the course, of conducting such business. Illustrations

(a) A is employed by B, residing in London, to recover at Bombay a debt due to B. A may adopt any legal process necessary for the purpose of recovering the debt, and may give a valid discharge for the same. (a) A is employed by B, residing in London, to recover at Bombay a debt due to B. A may adopt any legal process necessary for the purpose of recovering the debt, and may give a valid discharge for the same."

(b) A constitutes B his agent to carry on his business of a ship-builder. B may purchase timber and other materials, and hire workmen, for the purpose of carrying on the business. (b) A constitutes B his agent to carry on his business of a ship-builder. B may purchase timber and other materials, and hire workmen, for the purpose of carrying on the business."

In the light of these provisions, it is essential to see the recital of the general

power of attorney dated 14/03/2005 executed by the first defendant in

favour of the said Krishnamurthy which is marked as Ex P 69. The recital in

this deed speaks about the agreement already entered between the

28/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

defendant and the land owners in respect of 2 acres 35 guntas of land in

Survey No. 270 and 269 at Bidaragauppe Village. The defendant expressing

his inability to go over to Anekal has authorised Krishnamurthy to do all or

any of the following acts, deeds and things on behalf of Pertim Janarthana

Rao ( first defendant).

1) To appear before the Sub- Registrar, Anekal for the purpose of presentation of the sale deeds that would be executed by the owners of the aforesaid lands. To appear on my behalf before the sub-

Registrar for the purpose of registration of the sale deeds in my name and on my behalf and to sign all statutory application forms, to swear to affidavits or such other documents or papers as may be required and also to do such other acts, deeds and things that may be required to be done for the effective completion of registration of sale deeds in my favour.

2) To represent me before the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of transfer of Khatha in respect of the aforesaid lands in my name and for the said purpose to sign applications, statutory forms, to swear to affidavits. My lawful attorney shall have powers to pay cess, tax and such other outgoings in respect of the aforesaid lands on my behalf.”

29/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

44.The recital thus authorise Krishnamurthy only to do acts and deeds

relating to registration of the sale deeds and nothing more. While so, the

alleged acknowledgment of debt executed by Krishnmurthy on behalf of the

first defendant will not bind the defendants.

45.In this context, it is also relevant to refer Sections 226, 227 and

228 of the Indian Contracts Act which deals enforcement and consequences

of agent's contracts, and how far the act of agent exceeding his authority will

bind the principal.

“226. Enforcement and consequences of agent’s contracts.— Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. —Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person." Illustrations

(a) A buys goods from B, knowing that he is an agent for their sale, but not knowing who is the principal. B’s principal is the person entitled to claim from A the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by the principal, set-off against that claim a debt due to himself from B. (a) A

30/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

buys goods from B, knowing that he is an agent for their sale, but not knowing who is the principal. B’s principal is the person entitled to claim from A the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by the principal, set-off against that claim a debt due to himself from B."

(b) A, being B’s agent, with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B. (b) A, being B’s agent, with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B."

227. Principal how far bound, when agent exceeds authority.—When an agent does more than he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as between him and his principal. —When an agent does more than he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as between him and his principal." Illustration A, being owner of a ship and cargo, authorizes B to procure an insurance for 4,000 rupees on the ship. B procures a policy for 4,000 rupees on the ship, and another for the like sum on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but not the premium for the policy on the cargo. A, being owner of a ship and cargo, authorizes B to procure an insurance for 4,000 rupees on the ship. B procures a policy for 4,000 rupees on the ship, and another for the like sum on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but not the premium for the

31/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

policy on the cargo."

228. Principal not bound when excess of agent’s authority is not separable.—Where an agent does more than he is authroized to do, and what he does beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound to recognize the transaction. —Where an agent does more than he is authroized to do, and what he does beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound to recognize the transaction." Illustration A, authorizes B to buy 500 sheep for him. B buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for one sum of 6,000 rupees. A may repudiate the whole transaction. A, authorizes B to buy 500 sheep for him. B buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for one sum of 6,000 rupees. A may repudiate the whole transaction."

46.It is seen that Ex P-10 letter given by Krishnamurthy the agent of

the first defendant is not within the authority and it is separable from the

acts authorised. Therefore, execution of the letter Ex P-10 as agent of first

defendant is an act in excess of the authorisation. This execution of this

letter does not fall within the acts authorised to do under Exhibit P-69.

Therefore, it is held that for want of authorisation, the first defendant who is

the principal is not bound by Ex P-10 executed by his agent.

47.Dehors of Ex P-10, independently if other documents are analysed

for ascertaining the existence of liability, in the absence of the documents to

32/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

show that the plaintiff has incurred expenses in dealing with the property

and the first defendant agreed for a sale consideration of the properties at

the rate of Rs. 46 lakhs per acre the plaintiff averments stand in air without

any corroboration. Neither in the sale agreement ( Ex P-3) nor in sale deeds

marked as Ex.P.5 to P.8 the property is valued at Rs 46 lakhs per acre.

48.It is the contention of the plaintiff that, though the market value of

the property was Rs 46 lakhs per acre, just for registration purpose, it was

undervalued. If that is so, it is for the land owners to speak about it and not

the plaintiff who has nothing to do with the property. Further, in Ex P-59, the

endorsement certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Anekal this Court finds

that the Government after conversion of the land use has fixed the market

value of the property at the rate of Rs.31,50,000/-. Therefore, even by

remote preponderance of probabilities, the case of the plaintiff could not be

accepted.

49.This Court finds that except Exs.P-3, P-10 and P.11, all other

documents relied by the plaintiff is either documents relating to the criminal

proceedings initiated by either side or civil proceedings initiated by third

parties. The relevancy of these evidence are almost nil or very remote. The

materials available and culled out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff

33/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

proves that the parties are not strangers. There was money transactions

between them. Later, in view of the dispute cropped up, litigations at various

forum have been initiated. As for as the relief sought in this case, the

parallel criminal prosecution based on the cheque marked as Ex P-11 alone

is some relevancy. The said prosecution has ultimately ended in acquittal.

However, as fairly conceded by both the learned counsel on either side, the

finding of the Criminal Court has less binding effect on the civil proceedings.

Therefore, to arrive at a conclusion on the issues framed evidence has to

appreciated independently. For that purpose, essentially, 3 documents are to

be scrutinized. Those documents are Exs.P-3, P-10 and P-11.

50.As pointed out earlier, Ex P-3 is an agreement for a miniscule

minuscule extent of land (7 ½ guntas ) with one owner and the property

under consideration is of vast extent of 5 acres and 22 ½ guntas. (About 40

guntas is equal to one acre) owned by several persons. The plaintiff has no

evidence to show he has any agreement with all the owners except one.

51.Ex.P.10 is a letter given by Krishnamurthy, the Power Agent of the

first defendant. It is claimed to be letter acknowledging the debt. However,

when tested with the recital of power of attorney deed ( Ex P 69) 'whether

Krishnamurthy had authority to give such letter', it is found to be beyond his

34/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

authority. Under section 188 of the Indian Contract Act, an Agent can do an

act only to an extent which he is authorised explicitly or impliedly and not

beyond that.

52.Ex.P.10, acknowledgment alleged to have been executed by

Krishnamurthy is dated 15.04.2006. This letter indicates that the first

defendant is liable to pay Rs.79,00,000/- towards purchase of land bought

through the plaintiff. If the statement found in the document is true, then

there must be some evidence that the plaintiff had entered into an

agreement with the other land owners holding the entire 5 acre 22 ½ guntas

of land whereas, the only document produced by the plaintiff is Ex.P.3, which

is in respect of 7 ½ guntas of land held by B.Chennakesava. When the

entire transfer of property got completed and sale deeds Exs.P-5 to P-8 got

registered between 19.03.2005 and 11.04.2005, the necessity to give the

letter Ex P-10 on 15/04/2006 is also left unexplained by the plaintiff.

53.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relying upon the entries made

in the statement of bank accounts and the letter of the Andra Bank which

are marked as Exs.P-17; P-42; P-43 and P-44 would submit that the

plaintiff had paid money to the other land owners on the dates relevant to

the date of sale deeds and paid the necessary registration charges to the

35/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Sub-registrar and the same is admitted by the first defendant.

54.Merely by such entries and admission, the case of the plaintiff

cannot be held to be proved, when there are contra evidence let in by the

defendant that more than Rs.19 lakhs been paid to the plaintiff and the

plaintiff has not rendered accounts to the first defendant. The plaintiff in his

wisdom has thought fit not to examine the vendors to show that he had

some role in the transactions covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8. Neither he has

placed evidence to lend credence to his case that he has spent money for

conversion and to settle the litigation between the vendors. Therefore, by all

means, this case could be viewed only as a speculative litigation webbed out

of documents given in trust or held during the normal course of business

transaction. For the above reasons, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in

negative.

55.Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants have multiple litigations

against each other. In each case, they have taken different stand. As far as

the present case is concerned, the plaintiff would rely upon Ex P.11 cheque

to prove the liability. No doubt, there shall be an initial presumption of

liability regarding the cheque, however, the said presumption is rebuttable.

The defendants can rebut the presumption by placing materials to show that

36/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

the cheque was not issued for the liability in the manner in which the plaintiff

has projected.

56.The plaintiff to prove his entitlement of Rs.79,00,000/- would

heavily rely upon the sale agreement for 7 ½ guntas of land and the

acknowledgment letter of Krishnamurthy. The content of documents does

not correlates the parties, value of the property and liability mentioned in

the cheque Ex P-11. The claim of Rs.79,00,000/- for the transactions

covered under the sale deeds viz., Exs.P.5 to P.8 executed by the land

owners directly in the name of the first defendant either should be

established through impeccable documents or through independent reliable

oral evidence. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to state the exact date

the cheque was issued and from whom he received the cheque.

57.Under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , unless

contrary is proved, it has to be presumed that it was issued on the date on

which it bear. Being a rebuttable presumption, it is the duty of the Court to

look whether the cheque would have been given on 30/10/2007. In this

context, Ex P-22 the criminal complaint before the Crime Branch, Chennai

on 30.08.2007, against the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy given by the first

defendant is relevant and requires consideration. This complaint was taken

37/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

on file for investigation in Crime No. 470/2007. In this complaint it is

specifically alleged that the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy has cheated the first

defendant to a tune of Rs.1.50 crores in connection with the land dealing.

While so, after lodging criminal complaint on 20/08/2007, the first defendant

could not have issued the cheque Ex P-11 in favour of the plaintiff on

30.10.2007.

58.In alternate, the probable date or month of issuance of this cheque

can be ascertained by verifying the dates on which the previous and

subsequent cheques were encashed. From Ex P-47 the ABN/AMRO bank

statement of account of the second respondent firm indicate that most of the

cheques bearing Numbers between 401673 and 401683 were encashed

between October 2004 and January 2005. Out of these cheques, the plaintiff

himself has encashed the following 4 cheques for total sum of Rs

19,50,000/-:-

1) 27/10/2004 – Cheque No. 401673 Rs. 9,50,000/-

2) 13/12/2004 – Cheque No. 401676 Rs. 5,00,000/-

3) 01/01/2004 – Cheque No. 401683 Rs. 5,00,000/-

59.Therefore, by preponderance of probabilities, the defendants had

rebutted the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

38/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Instruments Act, that the cheques were not issued on 30/10/2007 for any

debt or existing liability. After the rebuttal, the burden shifts on the plaintiff

to prove 'whether the cheque Ex P-11 was given to him by the first

defendant on 30/10/2007' and 'whether the same was given for discharge of

liability'. The evidence available does not prove the facts asserted by the

plaintiff. Therefore, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the case

of the plaintiff is a story concocted by making use of the cheque and letter

given by Krishnamurthy. Accordingly, the issues 6 and 7 are answered in

negative.

60.The suit is laid before this Court on 25/10/2010 based on the

dishonoured cheque dated 30/10/2007 issued pursuant to the

acknowledgment of debt given by Krishnamurthy on 15/04/2006. As far as

the letter of acknowledgment Ex P-10, which is given by the agent and

already in the earlier part of this judgment it is held that the agent has given

this letter without authority. In so far as the Cheque Ex P-11 is concerned,

though it bears 30/10/2007 as date and under section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved the

negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date, this

point has been discussed above at length and held that the presumption

under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the date has

39/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

been rebutted through the entries found in the 2nd defendant's bank

statement of account marked as Ex P-47.

61.Sub-section (3) of section 25 Indian Contracts Act deals with

acknowledgment time barred debt. According to Pollock and Mulla ( The

Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act - 14th Edition, Lexis Nexis -

Butterworths Wadhwa), in order to invoke the provisions of Section 25(3) of

the Indian Contracts Act, the following conditions must be satisfied:-

1. It must be referred to a debt which the creditor but for the period of

limitation, might have enforced;

2. There must be a distinct promise to pay wholly or in part such debt

and

3. The promise must be in writing signed by the person or by his duly

appointed agent.

62.Therefore, a promise to pay a time-barred debt is a condition

precedent for application of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The

said promise must be express and unequivocal. Now, when we read the

content of the letter - Ex P-10 given by Krishnamurthy as general power of

40/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Attorney holder of the first defendant, leave alone the authority to give such

letter, we find that the promise to pay is conspicuously absent in this letter.

Assuming the letter acknowledging the debt is valid and given prior to the

expiry of limitation, it is highly improbable to say the cheque - Ex P-11 was

issued on 30/10/2007. Undoubtedly, it should have been left the possession

of the defendants and come to the possession of the plaintiff prior to

20/08/2007, the date on which the first defendant gave complaint to the

Commissioner of Police, Chennai alleging fraud and cheating.

63.However, the cheque being dishonoured, one of the issue framed in

this case is 'whether a dishonoured cheque will save the limitation of time

barred debt, in the absence of promise'. This issue is a significant question

of law, though may not have serious bearing on the case in hand, even if

held either way.

64.Cheque is defined under section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act as a 'bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to

be payable otherwise than on demand'. Cheque is therefore a negotiable

instrument carrying the promise implicitly, unlike a pro-note where the

promise is explicit and mandatory. Therefore, limitation has to be reckoned

from the the date the cheque and not on the fact 'whether the cheque was

41/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

honoured or dishonoured'. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the

issuance of cheque is to be presumed to be issued for discharge of debt. The

consequence event 'whether the said cheque on presentation honoured or

not,' is immaterial.

65.In the opinion of this Court, even if the said cheque is not

presented in time and become stale, but it is proved that the cheque was

issued with intention to discharge the debt or part of the debt then, the

limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the cheque considering the

cheque as acknowledgment of debt.

66.As far as the facts of this case in hand, the cheque in the name of

the plaintiff gives him the cause of action to sue and suit being filed within 3

years from the date on which the cheque bear, this prima facie saves the

limitation. The plaintiff cannot be desuited on the ground of limitation.

However, the plaintiff fails to succeed, since, this Court has held that the

plaintiff has not proved his case for recovery of money and the cheque is not

issued for any enforcible debt. Therefore, the discussions on limitation

based on the fact 'whether dishonour of cheque will save limitation is

academics'. Issues 3 and 5 are answered accordingly.

42/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

67.The first defendant is the signatory of the cheque - Ex P-11 and he

has signed the cheque on behalf of the 2nd defendant partnership firm.

Therefore, the other partners of the 2nd defendant firm are arrayed as

defendants 3 and 4. Hence, this court finds no legal error in joinder of

parties. Issue No. 4 is answered in negative.

68.As a result, for the reasons stated, the issues are held against the

plaintiff and the suit is dismissed with costs.

08.01.2020 jbm

Index: Yes Speaking order/non speaking order

List of witness examined on the side of the plaintiff :-

M.Balaji – P.W.1

List of witness examined on the side of the defendants :-

Perim Janardhan Rao – D.W.1

List of exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff :-

43/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

44/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Exhibits Description Ex.P16 Certified copy of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.5483 of 2008 dated 16.06.2009. Ex.P17 Certified copy of the Bank statement of plaintiff for the period 01.04.2005 to 01.07.2005. Ex.P18 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.09.2004. Ex.P19 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.07.2005. Ex.P20 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.03.2006 Ex.P21 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 10.03.2006 Ex.P22 Certified copy of the F.I.R. No.470/2007 dated 20.08.2007 Ex.P23 Certified copy of the stop payment letter dated 14.07.2008 Ex.P24 Certified copy of the complaint dated 15.07.2008 to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Ex.P25 Certified copy of the petition in Crl.P.No.5483/2008 Ex.P26 Certified copy of the affidavit dated 24.12.2008 in I.A.No. 1/2008 in Crl.P.No.5483/2006 Ex.P27 Certified copy of the fabricated letter of acknowledgment dated 30.06.2006 Ex.P28 Two original sample copies of RTC Forms (In Kannada) and same are translated into English Ex.P29 Certified copy of the calculation memo filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.107/2007 Ex.P30 Certified copy of the plaintiffs affidavit dated 27.05.2009 filed in C.C.No.19342 of 2008 Ex.P31 Certified copies of the affidavits (2 nos) dated 07.10.2009 and 10.02.2010 series Ex.P32 Certified copies of deposition dated 17.11.2009,

11.12.2009,19.12.2009, 07.01.2010 and 22.03.2010 filed in NI Act case Ex.P33 Certified copy of the judgment in 138 NI Act case Ex.P34 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.107 of 2007 Ex.P35 Certified copy of the affidavit dated 28.12.2007

45/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010 46/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010 47/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010 48/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

List of Documents exhibited on the side of the defendants:-

Exhibit No. Description Ex.D1 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.14 of 2002 dated 25.02.2002. Ex.D2 Certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.14 of 2002 dated 06.02.2009 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.200 of 2006 dated 06.02.2009 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.13 of 2002 dated 25.02.2002 Ex.D5 Certified copy of the order in O.S.No.13 of 2002 dated 04.03.2006 Ex.D6 Certified copy of the criminal M.P.No.2199 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 Ex.D7 Certified copy of the FIR 265 of 2008 filed against the plaintiff by Narra Jagadesh dated 22.08.2008 Ex.D8 Certified copy of the letter of acknowledgment from Krishnamurthy dated 30.06.2006. Ex.D9 Certified copy of the FIR filed against plaintiff in Crime No.470 of 2007 Ex.D10 Certified copy of the Notice to the defendant by counsel for plaintiff dated 14.05.2008 Ex.D11 Certified copy of the reply from defendant dated 30.05.2008 Ex.D12 Certified copy of the complaint from the defendant to the Commissioner of Police dated 15.07.2008. Ex.D13 Certified copy of the Stop instruction issued by the defendant to ABN Amro Bank dated 14.07.2008. Ex.D14 Certified copy of the order of the High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.2774 of 2008 dated 08.02.2008. Ex.D15 Certified copy of the order of the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.1371 of 2008 dated 28.01.2008. Ex.D16 Certified copy of the affidavit and petition filed by the

defendant before the Judicial Magistrate – I, Poonamallee

49/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

Exhibit No. Description for production of confession statement of the plaintiff.

Ex.D17 Certified copy of the complaint given to the Commissioner of police by the defendant.

Ex.D18 Certified copy of the charge sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee dated 25.08.2009. Ex.D19 Certified copy of the judgment in Cl.Appeal No.878 of 2010 dated 21.07.2012.

Ex.D20 Certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the defendant by Narayanappa and others dated 11.05.2005.

Ex.D21 Certified copy of the sworn affidavit of the plaintiff in C.C.No.19342 of 2008 dated 27.05.2009.

50/51

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.941 of 2010

G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,

jbm

Judgment made in C.S.No.941 of 2010

08.01.2020

51/51

http://www.judis.nic.in