Appeal by the defendant against a decree in a suit for recovery of money secured by a registered mortgage deed. The court found no evidence of coercion or of repayment, upheld the deed as best evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, and confirmed the decree with interest at 24% until decree and 12% thereafter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No. 10140 of 2017
P.Ponnusamy
... Appellant
Vs.
A.Palanisamy (died)
Respondents 2 to 4 brought on record as LR of deceased Sole respondent viz., (A.Palanisamy) vide court order dated 27.06.2022 made in C.M.P. Nos. 10087 to 10089 of 2018)
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Sec. 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2015 passed by the I Addl. District Court, Tiruppur in O.S. No.629 of 2009.
1/8
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Natarajan for R2 to R4 R1 – died
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.629 of 2009, on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, challenging the findings of the trial court, had preferred this Appeal Suit.
2/8
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
recovery of loan based on the mortgage deed with restricted interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
original title deed marked as Ex.A2. The defendant himself in his evidence admits that he handed over title deed at the time of trial. However, he has not given any reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff and also not proved that he paid the interest. Therefore, the trial judge held that based on Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed, he has not proved that he paid the interest. Therefore, the trial judge held that based on the Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed, the plaintiff proved his claim. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of him directing the defendant to pay suit claim within two months with restricted interest. Challenging the said findings, the defendant preferred this Appeal Suit.
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
the trial court failed to take note of the fact that the defendant has no necessity to borrow the loan of Rs.6 lakhs and the plaintiff also not established that for the said borrowal, the said document was handed over to him. Inspite of that, the suit was decreed as such is erroneous one and liable to be set aside. Moreover, the trial court improperly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2, who had no direct knowledge about the alleged loan transaction. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings.
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
document by coercion with the intention to grab his property. But, no evidence adduced on the side of defendant to prove the said coercion made by the plaintiff. Even as per the contention of defendant, he borrowed only a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the plaintiff, but there is no independent evidence to prove the said aspect. As per Ex.A1 recital, there is a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was borrowed by the defendant by mortgaging his property and the original title deed stand in the name of defendant also been handed over to the plaintiff. Moreover, as per the written objections, the defendant would submit that he has paid the interest, but there is no proof is sought to establish the same. Admittedly, P.W.2 is not a signatory of Ex.A1. During the cross-examination, the defendant admits that he handed over the original document to the plaintiff but there is no evidence that the defendant borrowed only Rs.2 lakhs, however as per recitals of Ex.A1, he borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs. As per Sec.92 of Evidence Act, the plaintiff proved his claim through Ex.A1, which is a best evidence and there is no contra evidence on the side of defendant to disprove Ex.A1 and the trial court rightly appreciated those facts, which needs no interference of this court. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the 6/8
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
issue is answered. However, in respect of interest, the plaintiff restricted his claim to 24% though there is an agreement for 30% interest, it was taken into consideration. Accordingly, time is granted to the defendant to repay the suit claim of Rs.10,83,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% till the date of decree i.e. upto the year 2015 and thereafter at the rate of 12% till realisation for the period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On payment of such amount, the plaintiff is directed to hand over the original title deed to the defendant. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and the findings of the trial judge in O.S.No.629 of 2009 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
03.01.2025
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp To I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
7/8
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
A.S.No. 262 of 2017
03.01.2025
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed is a valid document establishing the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the loan.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Ponnusamy
A.Palanisamy (died)
K.Suseela
M.Swarnalatha
G.Banumathy
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
