Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal has been arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.27 of 2006, dated 28.09.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.

2. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2006 are as follows:-

The defendant is the owner of the suit property. She borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a simple mortgage deed on 24.07.2002, which was duly executed, attested and registered. The defendant has undertook to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On 25.07.2003, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.40,000/- towards principal and interest and a receipt was also issued by the plaintiff for the same. Except this amount, the defendant has not paid any other amount. In spite of various demands, the defendant has failed to repay the balance amount and discharged the mortgage. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 13.05.2004 calling upon the defendant to repay the balance amount. The defendant received the said notice on 15.05.2004, but she neither sent a reply, nor repaid the balance amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money due on mortgage deed and prayed for a decree.
"1. Whether the trial Court is correct in granting decree ignoring the fact that the defendant has not received any amount under Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed dated 24.07.2002?
2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable?
3. To what relief the appellant/defendant is entitled to?"

6. The respondent as the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money due on a suit mortgage deed dated 24.07.2002 stating that he lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant. But the appellant/defendant paid only a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per Ex.A.2. Therefore, the appellant/defendant is liable to pay the balance amount. After issuance of notice under Ex.A.3, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit. The trial Court has decreed the suit.

11. Considering the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, Ex.A.1 is a simple mortgage deed. Even though the attestor was not examined by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant herein/defendant has examined one of the attestor Mr.Abdul Sabbar as D.W.3, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the appellant/defendant that is her sister's husband. While considering the evidence, it is clearly proved that the appellant herein has executed the simple mortgage deed after knowing the contents. So, it is appropriate to consider the oral evidence of D.W.3, attestor. D.W.3 is a secretary of wakf board of Pondicherry Government. In his evidence, he has stated that on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, the respondent/plaintiff has not paid any money. In his cross examination, he has fairly conceded that the appellant/defendant has accepted Ex.A.1 and signed the same. He was called by the appellant/defendant. So, he gone to the Registration Department on his own volition.

15. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant/defendant has received a notice Ex.A.3 under Ex.A.4 on 15.05.2004. But she has not sent any reply. The appellant/defendant has not disputed the execution of Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed. First time, after filing of the suit only, she has raised a plea since she has badly in need of money, the appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- through one Mr.Balaraman and executed a sale agreement. The respondent/plaintiff had demanded money from the defendant, since the amount was not paid by the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff has given a complaint to the police. Therefore, the appellant/defendant and her husband gone to the police station, where, the police directed the appellant/defendant to offer her house property as a security to the loan. So, she was forced to execute Ex.A.1. It is also pertinent to note that Mr.Balaraman has not stated anything about the same. As already stated above, the evidence of Mr.Balaraman is not trustworthy. The evidence of D.W.3-Abdul Sabbar clearly proved that Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed has been executed by the appellant/defendant on her own volition.