MATHEW Vs. ALEXANDER MUTHALALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representative of the defendant is the appellant. The defendant executed Ext. D2 Otti dated 10-6-1959 in respect of the plaint property for Rs. 2500/- in favour of Captain Common. A portion of the building included in Ext. D2 was given to the possession of the mortgagee. The mortgagee assigned the Otti right to Sosamma by Ext. P2 on 14-2-1963 who assigned the same to the plaintiff by Ext. P3 dated 19-11-1963. The plaintiff alleged that whatever possession of the plaint property he had has been surrendered to the defendant. The suit is instituted for recovery of the mortgage money with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of suit.

(2.) Ext. D2 which is the original mortgage deed was produced by the defendant. Ext. P1 is a registration copy of Ext. D2.

(3.) It was contended by the defendant that the amount due under Ext. D2 was discharged by him. He produced Ext. D1 receipt dated 23-9-1962 to prove the plea of discharge. According to the defendant, Ext. D2 was handed over to him by Captain Common along with Ext. D1. The courts below concurrently found that Ext. D1 is not genuine, the discharge pleaded by the defendant is not true, Ext. D2 was not returned to the defendant as stated by him but was obtained by her surreptitiously. Counsel appearing for the appellant did not rightly challenge these concurrent findings as they are based on pure appreciation of evidence.