JUDGMENT : P. Dhanabal, J. 1.This Civil Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of realization and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the Suit property. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is a financier by Profession for the past 35 years and the 1 st defendant has been availing loan from the Plaintiff and his family members from the year 2001. The Plaintiff used to lend money from his own fund or he will arrange money through other financiers like Mr. S. Mohan Kumar, Mr. Amit Kothari, M/s. Velu Finance and M/s. R.K. Associates – Kalpesh Jain etc., for which, the Plaintiff will stand as ‘guarantor’. The other financiers would lend money based on the guarantee given by the Plaintiff. If the borrower fails to repay the loan amount, the lender would demand not only from the borrower, but also from the Plaintiff, as he stood as guarantor. Out of the various loans availed by the 1 st defendant from the Plaintiff and his family members in the year 2016, the amount outstanding was Rs.72.40 lakhs. In order to secure the said loan, the 1 st defendant executed a demand Promissory Note dated 31.03.2016 to the tune of Rs.72,40,000/- and executed a balance confirmation letter dated 31.03.2016 for the said amount. The 1 st defendant also deposited the original title deeds of Sale Deed dated 26.02.1951 and Deed of Release Deed dated 01.02.1952 in respect of the property at Malayaperumal Street, Chennai. 2.1. Again in the month of December 2016, the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff for further financial assistance to an extent of Rs.1 crore and at the request of the 1 st defendant, the Plaintiff also arranged financial assistance from Mr. Mohan Kumar and for the said money, the Plaintiff and his son stood as guarantors and a sum of Rs.1 crore was paid to the 1 st defendant through installments viz., Rs.30 lakhs on 16.12.2016, Rs.10 lakhs on 13.04.2017 and Rs.60 lakhs on 15.02.2017 and in total, Rs.1 crore was paid by the Plaintiff to the 1 st defendant through Mr. Mohan Kumar. Mohan Kumar. The 1 st defendant had repaid only Rs.14 lakhs towards the loan amount of Rs.1 crore to the said Mohan Kumar and he did not make any other payment and thereby the said Mohan Kumar demanded payment and the 1 st defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the said money. At request of the 1 st defendant, the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.32 lakhs on behalf of the 1 st defendant to the said Mohan Kumar in the month of January 2018 and another sum of Rs.54 lakhs on behalf of the 1 st defendant to the said Mr. Mohan Kumar during the month of December 2019. The said Mohan Kumar also acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. 2.2. Again at request of the 1 st defendant, the Plaintiff arranged loan of Rs.2 crores from M/s. Velu Finance. For the said amount also, the Plaintiff stood as guarantor. The 1 st defendant did not repay the entire amount and there was a due of Rs.10 lakhs. The said amount of Rs.10 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff to the said M/s. Velu Finance on behalf of the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, in the month of October 2018, the 1 st defendant and his wife came to the residence of the Plaintiff to reconcile the accounts and after reconciliation of accounts, the 1 st defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2 crores, which is payable to Mr. Mohan Kumar, M/s. Velu Finance and to the Plaintiff. In furtherance of the above said discussion, the 1 st defendant issued four cheques dated 03.11.2018 for Rs.25 lakhs each and in the month of January 2019, he issued an another cheque dated 07.01.2019 for Rs.25 lakh. After issuance of the above said cheques, the 1 st defendant requested the Plaintiff not to present the said cheques and assured to pay Rs.2 crores within a week and as requested by the 1 st defendant and on the assurance given by him, the Plaintiff did not present those cheques. However, the 1 st defendant failed to make payments. 2.3. After few months in the middle of the year 2019, the 1 st defendant has avoided attending the calls of the Plaintiff and changed his activities. The Plaintiff came to know that the property mortgaged by the 1 st defendant was sold to the brother of the 1 st defendant. However, the 1 st defendant failed to make payments. 2.3. After few months in the middle of the year 2019, the 1 st defendant has avoided attending the calls of the Plaintiff and changed his activities. The Plaintiff came to know that the property mortgaged by the 1 st defendant was sold to the brother of the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, when the Plaintiff approached the 1 st defendant, he assured to repay the money. However, contrary to the same, he issued a Legal Notice dated 26.08.2019 to the Plaintiff and in the said notice, the 1 st defendant admitted the loan availed by him and handing over the title deeds given as security for the said borrowal of money. The Plaintiff also issued a suitable reply notice dated 07.09.2019. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant in collusion with his brother, sold the property to the 2 nd defendant through a Sale Deed dated 05.09.2018. At the time of sale, the 1 st defendant suppressed the existence of mortgage and the documents deposited with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has got charge over the property, the 1 st defendant had executed various loan documents in favour of the Plaintiff and also issued cheques in favour of the Plaintiff towards repayment of dues. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.3,28,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 03.11.2018. The 1 st defendant and his brother colluded with each other and sold the property in order to deprive the Plaintiff from exercising his rights over the property. The brother of the 1 st defendant expired and hence he has not been added as party. The 1 st defendant, after exchange of notices, in collusion with his son, had settled his ancestral property in favour of the 3 rd defendant through a Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2021. Again the 1 st defendant assured to repay the money and issued 7 cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 4 cheques dated 16.04.2021 and totally to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs and when the same were presented for collection, they were dishonoured. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money and the Suit is liable to be decreed. 3. Again the 1 st defendant assured to repay the money and issued 7 cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 4 cheques dated 16.04.2021 and totally to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs and when the same were presented for collection, they were dishonoured. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money and the Suit is liable to be decreed. 3. Brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the 1 s t defendant are as follows:- The claim made in the Suit does not represent any outstanding dues from this defendant and is not baked by any consideration whatsoever. The Suit does not contain even a bare minimum calculation as to how the fictitious amount of Rs.3,28,00,000/- has been arrived at. The amounts alleged to have been lent are all fictitious. The Suit has been indulged speculatively without any legal basis and the same is a clear case of abuse of process of Court. When the Suit is filed as if the Plaintiff stood as guarantor for the finance arranged from Mr. S. Mohan Kumar, Amit Kothari, M/s. Velu Finance and M/s. R.K. Associates – Kalpesh Jain, they have not been added as parties to the Suit, thereby the Suit is not maintainable. There are no records produced by the Plaintiff to show that he stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the 1 st defendant. The Plaintiff failed to explain as to what was the amounts the financiers individually lent, what was the amounts to which the Plaintiff stood as guarantor, when was the default and as to when the said guarantors invoked the guarantee. There is no material to substantiate the above said amount of Rs.72,40,000/-. In fact, this defendant had given title deeds to M/s. Velu Finance during May 2016 and the said M/s. Velu Finance extended the loan of Rs.1 crore and only a sum of Rs.79 lakhs was credited to this defendant’s bank account after deducting Rs.21 lakhs as interest for the said loan. The 1 st defendant had repaid the said Rs.1 crore by way of 10 instalments of Rs.10 lakhs each month and all the repayments were reflected in the bank accounts. After the loan was completely repaid, the Plaintiff has illegally taken custody of the Title Deeds from the said M/s. Velu Finance. The custody of the said documents is illegal at the hands of the Plaintiff. After the loan was completely repaid, the Plaintiff has illegally taken custody of the Title Deeds from the said M/s. Velu Finance. The custody of the said documents is illegal at the hands of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not filed any document for such a huge loan extended by Mr. Mohan Kumar and there is no date mentioned in the Plaint as about the money arranged by the Plaintiff to the tune of Rs.2 crores from M/s. Velu Finance. Without impleading the said M/s. Velu Finance as a party, the Suit is not maintainable. 3.1. In fact, the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have been doing business and they have known each other for over two decades, out of sheer trust, blank cheques, blank pro-notes, blank signed letter heads, signed blank papers of this defendant are in the possession of the Plaintiff. This defendant never suspected the Plaintiff that he would misuse such documents and blank pro-notes and letter heads in breach of trust to file the above Suit. Already the defendant issued a notice dated 26.08.2019 and in that he has stated that they had a long lasting relationship in financial dealings and on such basis only, he paid crores of rupees to the Plaintiff without even insisting for return of documents of title, cheques, pro-notes, signed letter heads, signed blank papers of the defendant that were in the custody of the Plaintiff. On verification of accounts and bank statements, nothing is payable by this defendant. The defendant has paid more than Rs.6 crores to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has received excess payment of Rs.2 crores on the basis of the illegally retained blank cheques, pro-notes and blank signed letter head of the defendant. The Plaintiff is illegally misusing the documents by filing the above Suit and instigating several others to file Suit before the City Civil Court and also criminal cases in sheer betrayer of Trust. The defendant has not handed over any title deeds of the above said documents as claimed by the Plaintiff. In fact, the title deeds were given to M/s. Velu Finance at the time of borrowing loan and not to the Plaintiff. Even as per the above documents in respect of the property situated in Malayaperumal Street, it is a joint family property and his brother also had equal share. In fact, the title deeds were given to M/s. Velu Finance at the time of borrowing loan and not to the Plaintiff. Even as per the above documents in respect of the property situated in Malayaperumal Street, it is a joint family property and his brother also had equal share. There was no mortgage of the said property, as falsely claimed by the Plaintiff. The property was not given as security to the Plaintiff at no point of time. The Plaintiff has not filed the Suit, based on the mortgage. There was no intention to create any charge or mortgage over the said property by this defendant and never gave the property or its documents to the Plaintiff. The 1 st defendant, as a dutiful father, settled his half share in the ancestral property at Poonamallee High Road in favour of his only son, the 3 rd defendant in the Suit. The Suit is not maintainable as against the 3 rd defendant. 3.2. The Plaintiff has furnished the details of 11 cheques as if they were issued on 19.03.2021 and 16.04.2021. Those cheques were drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. In fact, the said State Bank of Hyderabad ceased to exist on and from 01.04.2017, thereby, the cheques are time barred, inchoate instruments and not legal tender any more from 01.04.2017. The State of Hyderabad had stopped issuing cheques in their names after they merged with State Bank of India from 01.04.2017 onwards. This defendant had surrendered all the cheque leaves of State Bank of Hyderabad that he held, immediately on the merger with State Bank of India on 01.04.2017. The cheques in Sl. Nos.8 and 9 have taken by the Plaintiff in the year 2011 and Sl. No.10 cheque was taken in the year 2013 and the cheques mentioned in the item nos.1 to 4 are of the year 2017 and the cheques in Sl. Nos.5 to 7 are of the year 2016. The above said cheque leaves were illegally retained by the Plaintiff, long after the amounts were repaid by this defendant. The above said cheques have been taken as blank cheques without signatures and without mentioning the amounts or date on the same and without representing any consideration. Nowhere in the Plaint, the Plaintiff had stated as to how the Suit claim of Rs.3,28,00,000/- has been arrived at. The above said cheques have been taken as blank cheques without signatures and without mentioning the amounts or date on the same and without representing any consideration. Nowhere in the Plaint, the Plaintiff had stated as to how the Suit claim of Rs.3,28,00,000/- has been arrived at. The 11 th item cheque dated 16.04.2021 drawn on M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank has been taken by the applicant in the year 2017 when active transactions were held. Out of sheer trust that the business transactions were conducted as between this defendant and the Plaintiff for over 35 years, such instruments have continued to remain in the custody of the Plaintiff. However, the said 11 cheques stated in the Suit do not represent any consideration. The Suit is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable and therefore, the Plaintiff does not specify any property details so as to sustain the prayer for injunction. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the 2 nd defendant are as follows:- The Suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of such of each and every averment and allegation contained therein, except those that are specifically admitted by the 2 nd defendant herein. The Plaintiff lent money to the 1 st defendant and the 1 st defendant arranged loan from other financiers, who have not at all added as parties to the Suit, thereby, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This 2 nd defendant is not at all party to the transaction between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant and thereby, the Suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. The 1 st defendant and his elder brother namely D. Jayaram Naidu had sold the property to this 2 nd defendant and they delivered the Original Partition Deed dated 02.02.1952 entered into between their father A.R. Devarajulu Naid and his co- sharers whereunder one half share in OA. No.682 of 2021 schedule property admeasuring 1 ground 131 ½ sq. ft. came to be allotted to the share of their father absolutely and exclusively under Schedule-II and the remaining half share thereof was allotted to his brother A.R. Venkatesalu Naidu under Schedule – IV thereunder. No.682 of 2021 schedule property admeasuring 1 ground 131 ½ sq. ft. came to be allotted to the share of their father absolutely and exclusively under Schedule-II and the remaining half share thereof was allotted to his brother A.R. Venkatesalu Naidu under Schedule – IV thereunder. The other vendor i.e., the 1 st defendant’s elder brother D. Jayaram Naidu who had acquired the said half share of Mr. A.R. Venkatesalu Naidu under a Sale Deed dated 27.07.1972 preferred a complaint with police regarding the loss of his such document, secured non-traceable certificate from concerned police, gave public notice in a newspaper and delivered to this defendant the original rectification deeds dated 06.06.1977 and 26.11.1984 executed by the two major sons of A.R. Venkatesalu Naidu namely V. Sivakumar and V. Prakash in his favour in confirmation of the title conveyed to him by their father. 4.1. Even according to the Plaintiff, the 1 st defendant created a security by depositing the title deeds namely Sale Deed dated 26.02.1951 and release deed dated 01.02.1952 is plausibly farce since the original Partition Deed dated 02.02.1952, Original Will dated 01.06.2001 left by A.R. Devarajulu Naidu, Original Sale Deed dated 27.07.1972 and rectification deeds dated 06.06.1977 and 26.11.1984 of the other vendor D. Jayaram Naidu and the copy of probate order dated 04.05.2006 on the file of the High Court in respect of the Will dated 01.06.2001, which are the best evidences and documents of title to the 1 st defendant and his brother D.Jayaram Naidu are admittedly not in his lawful custody for claiming mortgage by deposit of title deeds in the absence of any duly stamped written memorandum, note or instrument confirming the deposit of title deeds as envisaged under Article 6 of Indian Stamp Act, the Plaintiff would not be clothed with any right much less any legal right to enforce the mortgage or security claimed by him in vain pursuits. Therefore, the Suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Based on the above pleadings, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire records, this Court has framed the following issues on 08.02.2022 and thereafter, on 23.06.2022, framed additional issues: Issues: (1) Whether the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of realization? 5. Based on the above pleadings, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire records, this Court has framed the following issues on 08.02.2022 and thereafter, on 23.06.2022, framed additional issues: Issues: (1) Whether the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of realization? (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the Plaint? (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the Suit? (4) To what other reliefs, the Plaintiff is entitled to? Additional Issues: (1) Whether the Suit is not barred by limitation? (2) Is not the Suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Are not the Principal Creditors from whom the Plaintiff claims right to file the Suit are necessary parties to the Suit? (4) Is the Suit maintainable without making the Principal creditors parties to the Suit for enforcement of alleged guarantee which the Plaintiff claims? 6. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 were marked. On the side of defendant, DW1 and DW2 were examined and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.22. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff would submit that the Plaintiff lent money to the 1 st defendant on various occasions and also he stood as guarantor for the money borrowed by the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant obtained loan from the Plaintiff and his family members in the year 2016 and outstanding balance payable by the 1 st defendant is Rs.72,40,000/- and for the above said loan, the 1 st defendant executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 31.03.2016 and also executed a Confirmation letter dated 31.03.2016 and also deposited the Original Titled deeds of Sale Deed dated 26.02.1951, Deed of Release dated 01.02.1952 to the Plaintiff. In the month of December 2016, the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff for further financial assistance and the Plaintiff arranged financial assistance to the 1 st defendant through one Mr. S. Mohan Kumar to the tune of Rs.1 crore and he only repaid Rs.14 lakhs, for the remaining amount, the Plaintiff paid Rs.32 lakhs to the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar in the month of January 2018 and paid Rs.54 lakhs in the month of December 2019. S. Mohan Kumar to the tune of Rs.1 crore and he only repaid Rs.14 lakhs, for the remaining amount, the Plaintiff paid Rs.32 lakhs to the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar in the month of January 2018 and paid Rs.54 lakhs in the month of December 2019. The above said amounts were paid to Mr. S.Mohan Kumar by the Plaintiff, at request made by the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, again the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff for arrangement of Rs.2 crores from M/s. Velu Finance and the Plaintiff stood as guarantor. The 1 st defendant has not paid the entire amount and there was a due of Rs.10 lakhs and the Plaintiff, being the guarantor, repaid the said Rs.10 lakhs to M/s. Velu Finance. Thereafter, in the month of October 2018, the 1 st defendant and his wife came to the residence of the Plaintiff to reconcile the accounts and after reconciliation of accounts, the Plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores, which is payable to Mr. S.Mohan Kumar, M/s. Velu Financce and to the Plaintiff. In furtherance of the above said discussion, the 1 st defendant issued four cheques dated 03.11.2018 for Rs.25 lakhs each and in the month of January 2019, he issued an another cheque dated 07.01.2019 for Rs.25 lakh and requested the Plaintiff not to present the said cheques and he would arrange money within a short period and thereafter, the 1 st defendant did not pay money and the Plaintiff came to know that the 1 st defendant along with his brother sold the property to the 2 nd defendant, which was given as security for the loan obtained by the 1 st defendant. 7.1. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant issued a Legal Notice dated 26.08.2019 and the same was suitably replied by the Plaintiff by issuing a Reply Notice dated 07.09.2019. Thereafter the 1 st defendant issued 7 cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 4 cheques dated 16.04.2021, to settle the loan to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs and when those cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured and therefore, the 1 st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3.28 crores, thereby, the Plaintiff filed the Suit. The 1 st defendant has also admitted the transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and he has not disputed the signatures found in the cheques and the Promissory notes. The 1 st defendant has also admitted the transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and he has not disputed the signatures found in the cheques and the Promissory notes. Therefore, the Plaintiff has established his case and in order to prove his case, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 were marked on the side of the Plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, they had examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.22. The Plaintiff, through the evidences, has proved his case and thereby, the Suit is liable to be decreed for the above said amount. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the Suit is not maintainable. The alleged Promissory note executed in the year 2016 and the Suit is filed in the year 2021, thereby, the Suit is barred by limitation. In fact, for the past 35 years, there were money dealings between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant has issued blank signed cheques at the time of borrowal of money from the Plaintiff. The 1 st defendant has repaid more than Rs.6 crores and 2 crore excess for the amount borrowed by him. The 1 st defendant obtained loan from M/s. Velu Finance to the tune of Rs.1 crore and at that time, he was only paid Rs.79 lakhs and Rs.21 lakhs was taken by them for interest and within 10 months, the 1 st respondent has repaid the entire money by 10 instalments. For the borrowal of said amount, the 1 st defendant had handed over the documents to M/s. Velu Finance. But M/s. Velu Finance had not returned the documents to this 1 st defendant, but they handed over the same to the Plaintiff. Now the Plaintiff taking advantage and misusing the illegal custody of those documents, filed the present Suit. The 1 st defendant had only handed over the documents to M/s. Velu Finance. There is no due to be payable by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff and the alleged cheques filed by the Plaintiff were given to the Plaintiff in the years 2011, 2013 and 2017 for the loan transactions and those cheques have been misused by the Plaintiff. In fact the cheques in Sl. Nos. There is no due to be payable by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff and the alleged cheques filed by the Plaintiff were given to the Plaintiff in the years 2011, 2013 and 2017 for the loan transactions and those cheques have been misused by the Plaintiff. In fact the cheques in Sl. Nos. 1 to 10 belongs to State Bank of Hyderabad, which is merged with State Bank of India on 01.04.2017 itself and the cheque in Sl. No.11 was also given as security for the loan and already the entire amount was paid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, based on the above said cheques retained by the Plaintiff, after settlement of loan, he has filed the Suit. The Plaintiff has not stated as to how he arrived at Rs.3.28 crores and without impleading the Principal creditors, the Suit is not maintainable. In order to prove the case of the defendants, they examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.22. The Plaintiff failed to prove his case, whereas the defendants has probabilized their defence, thereby the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials. 10. In this case, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money alleging that the 1 st defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff and other financiers, where the Plaintiff stood as guarantor. Based on such transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant, the 1 st defendant has to pay Rs.72.40 lakhs. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff to lend money and thereby he arranged loan through Mr. S. Mohan Kumar to the tune of Rs.1 crore and for the said amount, the Plaintiff has paid only Rs.14 lakhs and the remaining amount was settled by the Plaintiff to the said Mohan Kumar. Again the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff and he arranged loan to the tune of Rs.2 crores from M/s. Velu Finance and the 1 st defendant did not repay the entire amount and there was a due of Rs.10 lakhs towards the said loan. The said remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, in the month of October 2018, the 1 st defendant along with his wife, had re-conciliated the accounts with the Plaintiff and they agreed to pay Rs.2 crores which is payable to Mr. The said remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, in the month of October 2018, the 1 st defendant along with his wife, had re-conciliated the accounts with the Plaintiff and they agreed to pay Rs.2 crores which is payable to Mr. S.Mohan Kumar, M/s. Velu Finance and to the Plaintiff. Thereby, he issued four cheques dated 03.11.2018 for Rs.25 lakhs each and in the month of January 2019, he issued an another cheque dated 07.01.2019 for Rs.25 lakhs and those cheques were not presented for collection at the request of the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant issued a Legal Notice dated 26.08.2019 and the same was suitably replied by the Plaintiff through a reply dated 07.09.2019 and again the 1 st defendant issued 11 cheques for a sum of Rs.77 lakhs payable in favour of the Plaintiff and the same were dishonoured, while presented for collection, hence the Plaintiff filed the Suit. 11. The 1 st defendant admitted the transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. According to him, for the past 35 years, there were money transactions between them and he settled the entire money to the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, he lent money to the 1 st defendant in the year 2016 and as of date on 31.03.2016, dues payable to the Plaintiff by the 1 st defendant was Rs.72.40 lakhs and to that effect, he also executed a Promissory Note dated 31.03.2016 and a Confirmation Letter dated 31.03.2016 and for that amount, he also deposited title deeds. Since the above said execution of promissory note is dated 31.03.2016, the defendants have taken a plea that the Suit is barred by limitation. Though the 1 st defendant denied the alleged payment payable by him to the Plaintiff, according to him, it is barred by limitation. 12. This Court also framed issues and additional issues. As far as the additional issue No.I that Whether the Suit is not barred by limitation? is concerned, the Plaintiff himself admitted in the Plaint that Rs.72.40 lakhs was due as on 31.03.2016. To that effect, the 1 st defendant also executed a Demand Promissory Note and also a Confirmation Letter dated 31.03.2016 for the above said amount of Rs.72.40 lakhs. is concerned, the Plaintiff himself admitted in the Plaint that Rs.72.40 lakhs was due as on 31.03.2016. To that effect, the 1 st defendant also executed a Demand Promissory Note and also a Confirmation Letter dated 31.03.2016 for the above said amount of Rs.72.40 lakhs. Further according to the Plaintiff, the 1 st defendant also deposited the Original Title Deeds, but no any evidence that the said Deeds have been deposited with intent to mortgage the property for the above said amount. Even according to the Plaint, there is no any reference that the said amount was paid to the 1 st defendant. Further, according to the Plaintiff, again in the month of December 2016, the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1 crore and the Plaintiff arranged financial assistance from one Mr. S. Mohan Kumar and paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs on 16.02.2016, Rs.10 lakhs on 13.04.2017 and Rs.60 lakhs on 15.02.2017 and the 1 st defendant has repaid only Rs.14 lakhs out of the above said Rs.1 crore and for the remaining amount, payment of Rs.32 lakhs was made by the Plaintiff in January 2018 and Rs.54 lakhs was paid during December 2019 to the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant. Again the 1 st defendant issued 11 cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 16.04.2021 in respect of Rs.77 lakhs. But there is no evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to show that he paid money to the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar as requested by the 1 st defendant and there are no documents submitted by the Plaintiff to show that he stood as guarantor for the loan obtained from Mr. S. Mohan Kumar on behalf of the 1 st defendant. Though the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar has been examined as PW2, there are no records to show that the Plaintiff executed some documents and the Plaintiff stood as guarantor. Without any documents, mere oral evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim of money advanced by the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar to the 1 st defendant without any documents. 12.1. S.Mohan Kumar has been examined as PW2, there are no records to show that the Plaintiff executed some documents and the Plaintiff stood as guarantor. Without any documents, mere oral evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim of money advanced by the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar to the 1 st defendant without any documents. 12.1. The Suit is not filed by the Plaintiff based on the Mortgage Deed and the Suit is not filed under Order XXXIV of Code of Civil Procedure based on the mortgage and the Plaintiff has not even mentioned the property mortgaged as security and not prayed for any preliminary decree based on the above said mortgage, thereby, the claim made for the amounts borrowed in the year 2016-2017 are based on promissory note. The Suit is filed after 3 years from the date of said borrowal of the said amounts. The Suit is filed in the month of August 2021. The loan amount was borrowed on 31.03.2016 and 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Suit is in respect of the amount of Rs.72.40 lakhs and Rs.86 lakhs paid on behalf of the 1 st defendant by the Plaintiff to the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar is barred by limitation. As far as Rs.77 lakhs paid through 11 cheques is concerned the dates of cheques are in the year 2021 thereby the said claim is not barred by limitation. Thus, the additional issue no.1 is answered. 13. Since the additional issues 2 to 4 are inter-linked, they have been taken together for answering. As far as the additional issues 2 to 4 that Is not the Suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?, Are not the Principal Creditors from whom the Plaintiff claims right to file the Suit are necessary parties to the Suit? and Is the Suit maintainable without making the Principal creditors parties to the Suit for enforcement of alleged guarantee which the Plaintiff claims? are concerned, the Plaintiff filed the Suit as against the 1 st defendant that the 1 st defendant borrowed money from him, for which, he deposited title deeds of the property, but sold the said property to the 2 nd defendant and settled his share in the property to the 3 rd defendant. According to the Plaintiff, he paid money to the 1 st defendant to the tune of Rs.72.40 lakhs and arranged loan through one Mr. According to the Plaintiff, he paid money to the 1 st defendant to the tune of Rs.72.40 lakhs and arranged loan through one Mr. S.Mohan Kumar to the tune of Rs.1 crore and the 1 st defendant had only paid Rs.14 lakhs and the remaining Rs.86 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff to the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar on behalf of the 1 st defendant and again the Plaintiff arranged money to the 1 st defendant through M/s. Velu Finance to the tune of Rs.2 crores and the same was not fully repaid and there was a due of Rs.10 lakhs and the said amount was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant, thereby, the Plaintiff claimed the said amount. The Plaintiff has not impleaded the said Principal creditors as parties to the Suit. Once the Plaintiff filed the Suit alleging that he arranged money to the 1 st defendant through some other creditors and the Plaintiff was the guarantor for the loan obtained on behalf of the 1 st defendant, it is the duty of the Plaintiff to implead them as parties and without their presence, the Suit cannot be disposed of effectively, thereby, the Principal creditors from whom the Plaintiff borrowed amount, are necessary parties and for enforcement of the alleged guarantee, they have to be added as parties to the Suit. Therefore, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the additional issues 2 to 4 are answered. 14. As far as the issue no.1 that Whether the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of realization? is concerned, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit alleging that he lent money to the 1 st defendant to the tune of Rs.72.40 lakhs by executing Promissory Note dated 31.03.2016 and thereafter, he arranged money to the tune of Rs.1 crore through one Mr. S. Mohan Kumar by way of Rs.30 lakhs on 16.12.2016, Rs.10 lakhs on 13.04.2017 and Rs.60 lakhs on 15.02.2017 and the 1 st defendant has repaid only Rs.14 lakhs out of Rs.1 crore and the remaining amount of Rs.86 lakhs was settled by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant by paying Rs.32 lakhs in the month of January 2018 and Rs.54 lakhs during December 2019. There are no records to show that the 1 st defendant borrowed the said money from Mr. S. Mohan Kumar and the Plaintiff stood guarantor for the said loan. The Plaintiff has not produced any document and only examined PW2 Mr. S. Mohan Kumar. In the absence of any records, the oral evidence alone is not sufficient to prove that the Plaintiff stood as guarantor for the money borrowed by the 1 st defendant. The above said amount of Rs.1 crore is a huge amount and without any documents, how the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar had lent such an huge amount to the Plaintiff. To that effect, there is no explanation and no documents have been filed. Further, there are no records to show that the 1 st defendant had knowledge about the alleged settlement made by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant to the said Mr. S.Mohan Kumar. Already this Court in the previous additional issues, decided that the Suit in respect payments made by the Plaintiff to the tune of Rs.72.40 lakhs and Rs.86 lakhs is barred by limitation. Therefore the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief for the above said amounts allegedly payable by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff as well as to the said Mr. S. Mohan Kumar. 14.1. As far as the claim of the Plaintiff for the amount payable to M/s. Velu Finance to the tune of Rs.2 crores is concerned, there is no mention about the date on which the 1 st defendant obtained the said money from the said M/s. Velu Finance. Though the 1 st defendant admitted the borrowal of money from M/s. Velu Finance to the tune of Rs.1 crore, for the said amount, he mortgaged the Title Deeds of Sale Deed dated 26.02.1951 and Release Deed dated 01.02.1952, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff arranged the said amount on behalf of the 1 st defendant from M/s.Velu Finance and for which, the Plaintiff stood as guarantor and Rs.10 lakhs was not paid out of Rs.1 crore and for that amount, the Plaintiff made payment on behalf of the 1 st defendant to M/s. Velu Finance. Even according to the Plaintiff, in the month of October 2018, 1 st defendant and his wife approached the Plaintiff to reconcile the accounts and after reconciliation of accounts, the 1 st defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores payable to Mr. S. Mohan Kumar, M/s. Velu Finance and to the Plaintiff. But according to the Plaintiff, out of Rs.1 crore alleged to have been borrowed by the 1 st defendant, excluding the amoutn of Rs.14 lakhs paid by the 1 st defendant, the Plaintiff already paid a sum of Rs.32 lakhs during the month of January 2018 and Rs.54 lakhs in the month of December 2019. While so, how the reconciliation was made in October 2018, has to be explained by the Plaintiff and the same is falsified from the pleadings for the payment made by the Plaintiff on behalf of the 1 st defendant to Mr. S. Mohan Kumar during December 2019. Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to prove his case in respect of the payment payable to Mr. S.Mohan Kumar on behalf of the 1 st defendant. 14.2. Further the case of the Plaintiff is that the 1 st defendant after reconciliation, issued 4 cheques dated 03.11.2018 for Rs.25 lakhs each and another cheque dated 07.01.2019 for Rs.25 lakhs and thereafter, those cheques were not presented. The above said conduct of the Plaintiff would create doubt on the genuinity of claim made by the Plaintiff. After issuance of the cheques, on 03.11.2018 and 07.01.2019 without presenting the said cheques for collection how the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.54 lakhs in the month of December 2019 and it creates doubt on the genuinity over the Plaintiff’s claim. Further, it is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff has not issued any pre-suit notice to the 1 st defendant, per contra, the 1 st defendant only had issued a Legal Notice to the Plaintiff on 26.08.2019 and thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a Reply Notice dated 07.09.2019, wherein the transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have been mentioned and the 1 st defendant has fairly mentioned about the transactions and the blank cheques retained by the Plaintiff. Immediately, the Plaintiff has not taken any steps to file the Suit based on the above said documents. Immediately, the Plaintiff has not taken any steps to file the Suit based on the above said documents. Moreover, the case of the Plaintiff is that the 1 st defendant issued 11 cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 16.04.2021 and out of said cheques, 10 cheques were drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad and a cheque was drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. Those dates of cheques are very crucial. Once notices were exchanged between the parties, by disputing the transactions, it is unbelievable that the 1 st defendant issued cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 16.04.2021. An ordinary prudent man after exchanging notices cannot issue cheques for the disputed payment and how the plaintiffs accepted the cheques of State Bank of Hydrabad when the bank was merged with State Bank of India on 01.04.2017 itself, and the Plaintiff failed to establish that when the due amount is Rs.3.28 crores, how he accepted cheques only for Rs.77 lakhs has to be explained, but no proper explanation to that regard. Therefore, the conduct of the Plaintiff would create doubts on the genuinity over the claims. It is unbelievable that the 1 st defendant issued cheques dated 19.03.2021 and 16.04.2021 as alleged by the Plaintiff after exchanging notices between them dated 26.08.2018 and 07.09.2019. Further it is the contention of the defendants that the cheques issued by them are pertaining to the years 2011, 2013 and 2017 and it is the usual practice of the Plaintiff to obtain blank cheques at the time of loan transactions and the State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2017 and thereafter, the cheques have not been presented immediately for collection for the dues payable by the 1 st defendant and the Plaintiff also failed to present the cheques for collection, that too some of the cheques were not issued in the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the claims of the Plaintiff have not been proved and there are major discrepancies in the case of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, since he failed to prove his claims. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief through the Suit and the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 15. As far as the issue no.2 that Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the Plaint? Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief through the Suit and the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 15. As far as the issue no.2 that Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the Plaint? is concerned, the Plaintiff has not described any description of the property and the Plaintiff failed to prove that the property was mortgaged with the Plaintiff by the 1 st defendant for the loan lent to him by the Plaintiff and the Suit is not filed based on the mortgage of property and thereby, the Plaintiff failed to prove his claim and the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the Plaint. 16. As far as issue no.3 that Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the Suit? is concerned, the Plaintiff are failed to prove his claim for recovery of money, and hence he is not entitled to the cost. 17. As far as the issue no.4 that To what other reliefs, the Plaintiff is entitled to? is concerned, this Court decided in the issues and the additional issues that the Suit is barred by Limitation and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 18. In view of the above discussions, the Civil Suit is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed accordingly.