ROSY GEORGE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First defendant in O.S.No. 174 of 1985 of the III Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam is the appellant: plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the respondents.

(2.) The plaintiffs case can be summarised as follows:

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement, and defendants 4 to 6 filed another joint written statement. Their contentions briefly, are: Late P.L.George did not create an equitable mortgage, that they did not authorise him to create an equitable montage, that the suit is barred by limitation, that there was no agreement to pay the interest as claimed and that the promissory note mentioned in the plaint since are materially altered the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.