the wife of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is an unregistered equitable mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant, dated 29.05.2003. As per the contention of the 1st defendant, he paid the entire amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest. When that being the case, this court at loss to understand why the 1st defendant agreed to pay the interest in the subsequent months to the wife of the plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the Ledger containing the details of income and expenditure, which has been produced by the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.A9 it is clear that the 1st defendant received Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and paid Rs.2,25,000/-. The 1st defendant has not raised any serious objection, when Ex.19, produced before this Court as document and the genuinity of the document had also not been questioned by the 1st defendant in his additional written statement. Therefore, this Court unable to agree with the contention of the 1st defendant in respect of the plea that he had not received Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff. According to the appellant he received only Rs.30,000/- f rom the plaintiff and paid the same. The contention of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff is the habit of creating documents and filing vexatious suits, cannot be accepted without any valuable proof. No valuable evidence has been adduced by the 1st defendant to prove his case. As noted earlier, the courts below, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and I have no reason to interfere with the same. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
