9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hermen Federation. Since the respondent is a distant relative of the appellant, for purchase of the said land, they agreed to invest a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- each to execute a sale agreement. On believing the words of the respondent, on 20.04.2009, the appellant gave Rs. 5,05,000/- by way of cash. After receiving the said amount, the respondent has not executed any sale agreement in respect of purchase of the place. Later, the appellant, on coming to know that the respondent is a fraud and he is a habitual cheater and cheated many persons by using the name of the political party namely, Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi. Hence, he has written a letter dated 25.07.2009 to the respondent to repay the amount of Rs. 5,05,000/-. On receiving the said letter, the respondent came to the house of the appellant and told that as there was a problem, delay was caused in repaying the amount and he spent Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, he will repay Rs. 5,00,000/- after deducting the expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and for which, he issued Ex.P.3, cheque bearing No.683398 in respect of A/c No.609401017201 dated 05.08.2009 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank for Rs. 5,00,000/-. When the appellant presented the cheuqe for collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted that the appellant gave a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- to the respondent to purchase 42 plots by executing a sale deed. Later, the respondent approached the appellant and stated that he has spent Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses and hence, he will repay only Rs. 5,00,000/- and for which, he issued Ex.P.1, the cheque bearing No.683398 in respect of A/c. No.609401017201 dated 05.08.2009 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank. When the said cheque was presented for collection in State Bank of India, the same got dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" on the same day. Though the respondent has not given the amount, he issued a legal notice to the appellant stating that the appellant received Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 03.01.2009 and on 10.02.2009 respectively and accepted to repay the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two instalments. But, on 10.08.2009, he requested the appellant that he will give the amount after two months and without his knowledge, his brother-in-law, mistakenly, issued a legal notice. Again, when the appellant presented the cheque on 04.11.2009 for collection in Thaico Bank, Thiruvarur the same was returned on 05.11.2009. Hence, the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respondent, who is his distant relative. Accordingly, the respondent met the appellant and stated that instead of buying the house, they may buy a place of an extent of 74,665 sq.ft. at Nagapattinam E.C.R. Accordingly, they invested Rs. 5,05,000/- each to execute an agreement of sale. Pursuant to the same, the appellant gave a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- to the respondent. But, the respondent failed to execute any sale deed. Hence, the appellant wrote a letter dated 25.07.2009 to the respondent. On receiving the same, the respondent issued a cheque namely, Ex.P.3, cheque bearing No.683398 in respect of A/c.No.609401017201, dated 05.08.2009 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank for Rs. 5,00,000/-. When the appellant presented the cheque for collection on 05.08.2009 in State Bank of India, the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" on the same day. The respondent issued Ex.P.5, legal notice dated 05.08.2009 stating that the appellant received Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 03.01.2009 and on 10.02.2009 respectively and accepted to repay the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two instalments. But, the respondent, on 10.08.2009 informed the appellant that without h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce stating that the appellant has received Rs. 5,00,000/- on 03.01.2009 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.02.2009 as loan and returned Rs. 1,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has to be paid within one month. But, the respondent met the appellant on 10.08.2009 and requested two months time to repay the amount. Hence, the appellant presented the cheque on 05.11.2009 and the same was returned as "funds insufficient". 11.But, in cross examination, the appellant has stated that after analysing the land documents only he gave Rs. 5,05,000/- to the respondent and he has not filed any documents before the Court below. If he sees Paramanandam and Kalaiarasan, who are brotherin- law and brother of the respondent, he can identify them. He knows one Thirumavalavan, who is the brother-in-law of the respondent in respect of money transaction. As the said Thirumavalavan cheated the appellant Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of land business, the appellant gave a complaint against him. He further stated that on 30.03.2009, himself and the said Kalaiarasan executed a sale agreement with one person. On the same day i.e. on 30.03.2009, the appellant, the said Paramanandam and one Indirani executed y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, he can identify them and he has no business transaction with them. Further, in his cross examination, on the contrary, while producing Exs.D.5, D.6 and D.7 before him, he has stated that himself along with Paramanandam and Kalaiarasan have executed agreements of sale with one Indirani. Likewise, while producing Exs.D.2, D.3 and D.4 he has stated that there was compromise between himself and Thirumavalavan, which has been given contrarily in the complaint. Hence, there is material contradiction in the evidence. 19.It is seen that the appellant has not given any reply for Ex.P.5, notice, wherein it is stated that the appellant received Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent in the presence of the witnesses, without giving any document and on 10.02.2009, the appellant further received Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter, the respondent received Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.3.2009 and Rs. 50,000/- on 14.04.2009. 20.Secondly, it is seen that the appellant has not given any notice when the cheque was dishonoured. 21.Thirdly, the trial Court, while analysing the cheque, has found that the ink of the name and signature and the ink of the amount and date are different. The difference found in the che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
