AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 20.01.1994 between the plaintiff and B.Ramaiah, in the presence of Panchayatdars and the terms of the settlement was reduced to writing on the same date, wherein, B.Ramaiah and the 6th defendant had signed the document along with the plaintiff, accepting the terms and conditions contained therein. As per the settlement reached, B.Ramaiah has to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- and towards the said amount, B.Ramaiah issued four post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff, drawn on Dharmapuri Central Co-operative Bank, Hosur Branch, one for Rs. 40,000/- and the other three for Rs. 50,000/- each and undertook to arrange necessary amounts in the Bank to enable the plaintiff to encash the same, as and when presented. The plaintiff, thereafter, presented the cheque for Rs. 40,000/- for encashment and got the same encashed and the other three cheques each for Rs. 50,000/- though were presented by the plaintiff for encashment, had been returned by the Bank for the reasons as payment stopped by drawer and funds insufficient . Hence, the plaintiff on 03.08.1994, issued a legal notice to B.Ramaiah, calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days or face prosecution and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forged cheque on 31.03.1994 and the plaintiff is bound to return the said amount and the defendants did not receive any notice and the transaction pleaded in the plaint is not true and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6.In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs. A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 7.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to accept the case of the plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has come to be preferred. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: (1) In the absence of any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the predecessor of the defendants, or the necessary proof as to the existence of any legally valid debt or liability in favour of the plaintiff, whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money? (2) When Ex.A1 Muchilika/agreement an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on the summons being sent to B.Ramaiah, returned with the endorsement as he had died, according to the plaintiff, he had obtained the documents filed by him in the criminal court for the purpose of recovery of the amount by way of a Civil action due to him by B.Ramaiah and accordingly, it is his case that in as much as the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased B.Ramaiah, they are bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff and hence the suit. 10. The Defendants have disputed the validity of the panchayat Muchillika said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and B.Ramaiah and the 6th defendant on 20.01.1994 and further according to the defendants, B.Ramaiah and the plaintiff had not done any real estate business jointly as pleaded and hence, there is no question of any outstanding amount due to B.Ramaiah from the plaintiff as putforth and hence, it is stated that without any basis, the plaintiff had obtained the panchayat Muchillika and if really, real estate business had been done by B.Ramaiah and the plaintiff jointly, details of the same would have been disclosed in the plaint and further according to the defenda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ex.A1 panchayat Muchilika. They would admit their signatures in the said document and it is also not the case of the defendants that four postdated cheques had not been issued by B.Ramaiah in favour of the plaintiff as pleaded. What they would plead is that, the plaintiff and his men using arms and weapons, threatened B.Ramaiah and his son with dire consequences and out of such threat, coercion and fear had obtained signatures in the blank papers and stamp papers and also obtained cheques from them unlawfully and illegally, thus, according to the defendants, the above said documents had not been validly exchanged between the parties, pursuant to the business transaction done by the plaintiff and B.Ramaiah and also the said documents had not come out as the outcome of a valid Panchayt as pleaded by the plaintiff, hence it is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff cannot enforce the above said document for the recovery of the suit amount. 13.However the above defence version put forth by the defendants cannot be accepted in any manner and as determined by the Courts below, if really, the plaintiff and his men had used weapons and arms and putting the deceased B.Ramaiah and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions, accordingly, Ex.A1 Muchilika and the cheques Ex.A2 to A4 have come to be issued as putforth by the plaintiff. 15. However, it is argued by the counsel appearing for the defendants that inasmuch as the details of the business transactions said to have been done by B.Ramaiah and the plaintiff have not been disclosed in the plaint in detail and the Panchayat Muchilika, Ex.A1 also does not contain the details about the same in extenso, it is contended by him that when there is no material as to on what basis, the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- had been fixed as due from B.Ramaiah to the plaintiff, it is his plea that Ex.A1.Panchayat Muchilika should be declared as a void agreement, as at that point of time both parties were not at consensus ad idem, as to a matter of fact, with reference to any issue between them and in such view of the matter, it is stated that Ex.A1, Panchayat Muchilika is hit by Section 20 of Indian Contract Act and accordingly, the same cannot be enforced by the plaintiff. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the decision reported in (1998) 3 SCC 471 (Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhminder Singh). However, as rightly putforth by the plaintiff's counsel, if....