JUDGMENT J.NISHA BANU,J. and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. The first defendant is the appellant in this Appeal Suit. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli, made in O.S.No.45 of 2006.

[10/18, 19:20] Sekarreporter 1: PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgement
and decree dated 19.09.2006 made in O.S.No.45 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District
Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Ms.N.Krishnaveni
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman
for R2 to R4
R1-died
R5 to R10-No appearance
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The first defendant is the appellant in this Appeal Suit. This appeal has been filed
against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track
Court No.II), Tirunelveli, made in O.S.No.45 of 2006.
2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of recovery of a
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum against the appellant. The case of the
plaintiff is that he is well known to the appellant and the appellant was running a Medical
College at Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The further case of the plaintiff is that the appellant
promised to get medical seats to nearly 13 persons, who were introduced to the appellant by the
plaintiff. In the guise of getting medical seats, the appellant received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in
total from all the persons introduced by the plaintiff. It is stated that the appellant went back on
the promise and he did not return back the money immediately. Hence, the plaintiff settled the
entire amount and the appellant promised that the entire amount will be settled in favour of the
plaintiff within a month.
3. The appellant, pursuant to the promise given to the plaintiff, gave four demand
drafts totalling a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The plaintiff deposited three of the demand drafts
totalling a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- before the 5th defendant bank. When the same
was sent for collection to the 4th defendant bank, the demand drafts were returned with an
endorsement “demand draft reported lost”. The plaintiff attempted to get in touch with the
appellant, but the appellant was not reachable and hence left with no other option, the suit was
filed seeking for the recovery of money along with interest.
4. The case of the appellant is that he is a resident of Andhra Pradesh and he is a
Chartered Accountant by profession. He used to be the captain of the Indian basketball team
and was also an Arjuna Award recipient in the year 1978. The appellant was the chairman of a
Medical College. The further case of the appellant is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh
wanted to develop a wind farm to generate electricity through windmills near a place that was
available adjacent to the college and hospital. The college took interest in this venture and
hence, to start with, they wanted to invest in an existing windmill company located at
Kanyakumari District and Tirunelveli District. Pursuant to the same, the appellant was
introduced by one Loganathan from Chennai to the plaintiff and one Balu Devar. The appellant
was taken to Tirunelveli and a site inspection was made and the appellant was informed that an
initial investment around Rs. 25,00,000/- has to be made. The appellant therefore took four
demand drafts in Hyderabad and came to Kanyakumari. Two or three sites were shown to the
appellant and it was not to his satisfaction. Hence, the appellant was returning back to the
Syndicate bank, Tirunelveli to deposit the demand drafts. During the travel, the pouch in which
the demand drafts and all important certificates were kept, went missing. Inspite of the best
efforts of the appellant, the demand drafts and other important documents were not able to be
[10/18, 19:20] Sekarreporter 1: A.S(MD)No.30 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.10.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
A.S(MD)No.30 of 2007
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007
T.Vijaya Raghavan … Appellant / 1st Defendant
-Vs-
1.Sethu Ramapandiyan(died) .. 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff
2.Syndicate Bank,
malakpettai Branch,
Through its Branch Manager,
Malakpettai, Hydrabad.
3.Syndicate Bank,
Basheer Bagh Branch,
Hydrabad,
Through its Branch Manager,
Through its Branch Manager,
Basheer Bagh, Hydrabad.
4.Syndicate Bank,
Tirunelveli Town Branch,
Through its Branch Manager,
Tirunelveli Town.
5.Indian Bank,
Veeraraghavarpuram Branch,
Through its Branch Manager,
Office, Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli. .. Respondents 2 to5 / Defendants 2 to 5
6.Chandra
7.Shanthi
8.Revathi
9.Subha
10.Pankajam .. Respondents
[R6 to R10 are brought on records as LRs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated
08.11.2017 made in CMP(MD)Nos.1476 to 1478 of 2017 in A.S.(MD)No.30/2007 by MKKSJ &
VBSJ]
[10/18, 19:21] Sekarreporter 1: PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgement
and decree dated 19.09.2006 made in O.S.No.45 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District
Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Ms.N.Krishnaveni
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman
for R2 to R4
R1-died
R5 to R10-No appearance
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The first defendant is the appellant in this Appeal Suit. This appeal has been filed
against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track
Court No.II), Tirunelveli, made in O.S.No.45 of 2006.
2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of recovery of a
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum against the appellant. The case of the
plaintiff is that he is well known to the appellant and the appellant was running a Medical
College at Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The further case of the plaintiff is that the appellant
promised to get medical seats to nearly 13 persons, who were introduced to the appellant by the
plaintiff. In the guise of getting medical seats, the appellant received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in
total from all the persons introduced by the plaintiff. It is stated that the appellant went back on
the promise and he did not return back the money immediately. Hence, the plaintiff settled the
entire amount and the appellant promised that the entire amount will be settled in favour of the
plaintiff within a month.
3. The appellant, pursuant to the promise given to the plaintiff, gave four demand
drafts totalling a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The plaintiff deposited three of the demand drafts
totalling a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- before the 5th defendant bank. When the same
was sent for collection to the 4th defendant bank, the demand drafts were returned with an
endorsement “demand draft reported lost”. The plaintiff attempted to get in touch with the
appellant, but the appellant was not reachable and hence left with no other option, the suit was
filed seeking for the recovery of money along with interest.
4. The case of the appellant is that he is a resident of Andhra Pradesh and he is a
Chartered Accountant by profession. He used to be the captain of the Indian basketball team
and was also an Arjuna Award recipient in the year 1978. The appellant was the chairman of a
Medical College. The further case of the appellant is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh
wanted to develop a wind farm to generate electricity through windmills near a place that was
available adjacent to the college and hospital. The college took interest in this venture and
hence, to start with, they wanted to invest in an existing windmill company located at
Kanyakumari District and Tirunelveli District. Pursuant to the same, the appellant was
introduced by one Loganathan from Chennai to the plaintiff and one Balu Devar. The appellant
was taken to Tirunelveli and a site inspection was made and the appellant was informed that an
initial investment around Rs. 25,00,000/- has to be made. The appellant therefore took four
demand drafts in Hyderabad and came to Kanyakumari. Two or three sites were shown to the
appellant and it was not to his satisfaction. Hence, the appellant was returning back to the
Syndicate bank, Tirunelveli to deposit the demand drafts. During the travel, the pouch in which
the demand drafts and all important certificates were kept, went missing. Inspite of the best
efforts of the appellant, the demand drafts and other important documents were not able to be
[10/18, 19:21] Sekarreporter 1: the amount was also deposited by the appellant. In view of setting aside the Judgement and
Decree of the Trial Court and allowing this appeal, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited along with accrued interest, if any.
31. In the result, this appeal suit stands allowed and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B, J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
13.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
The Additional District Judge,
(Fast Track Court No.II),
Tirunelveli.
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PJL
Judgment made in
A.S(MD)No.30 of 2007
13.10.2022
_______________
Page No. of