JAGDISH CHANDER GULATI Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE respondents sought a summary decree against the appellant, inter-alia, alleging that their predecessor-in-interest, late Shri Shiv Charan Singh advanced a loan in sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the appellant and that while accepting the loan, the appellant executed a promissory note acknowledging the loan recording therein that it was to be repaid with interest @ 24% per annum. It was alleged that a mortgage agreement was executed by late Shri Shiv Charan Singh affirming the receipt of the loan and recording therein that possession of the property mortgaged as also the title deeds were handed over as security for repayment, but actually neither was possession handed over nor were the title documents handed over; only photocopy thereof was supplied. Alleging that neither was the loan returned nor interest was ever paid, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), being the loan amount plus Rs. 5,84,416. 43 (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Four thousand Four Hundred sixteen and paise forty three only) being the pre-suit interest.

(3.) SEEKING leave to defend, the appellant stated that he had repaid the loan evidenced by the fact that possession of the mortgaged property was restored to him as also the title documents relating thereto. He stated that late Sh. Shiv Charan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had very friendly relations with him and on said account when he returned the loan amount he did not bother to obtain the receipt in acknowledgement of the return of the loan.