K SHANTHASUNDARI Vs. S S MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for recovery of money due on a mortgage. THE plaint averments are as follows: THE defendant borrowed various sums of money from the plaintiff on different dates, namely on 1.11.1979, 2.3.1981, 19.4.1981, 22.7.1981, 30.9.1981, 18.1.1982, 10.3.1982, 11.11.1982, 1.8. 1985 and 20.1.1986. THE loans were for different sums and except for the last two loans the other eight loans were to bear an interest of 24% per annum. THE loans on the last two dates were to bear an interest of 30% per annum and 36% per annum respectively. THE money was borrowed for business purposes. THE first defendant had paid the interest upto date on all the loans till 3.12.1985, except for the last loan which was availed of on 20.1.1986. Since the total amount borrowed was quite huge, the plaintiff asked the first defendant to furnish security. THErefore, on 12.9.1985, he executed a mortgage deed by depositing the title deeds of the suit property. Though there are two door numbers, since the property mortgaged is under one single document, the entire transaction is a single one. THE first defendant had acknowledged all the borrowings made by him prior to the date of mortgage. THE total amount borrowed is Rs.2,05,000. On 20.1.1986, the plaintiff wrote a letter agreeing to pay interest at 36% per annum uniformly on all the loans from January, 1986. Pursuant to the execution of the mortgage deed on 12.9.1985, the first defendant had deposited the title deeds of the suit properties. Since the first defendant did not pay any amount after January, 1986, plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice to be issued on 28.9.1997, 19.10.1997 and 3.10.1998. After the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, the suit properties have been mortgaged to defendants 2 and 3 and they are impleaded as subsequent mortgagees. THErefore, the plaintiff prays for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,59,235 with interest at 36% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,05,000.

(2.) THE first defendant alone filed a written statement. THE other two defendants were set ex parte. THE averments of the written statement are as follows: "THE suit is time-barred. Two independent transactions have been clubbed together. THErefore, suit is not maintainable. THE defendant has paid whatever amount was borrowed and no amount is due. THE creation of equitable mortgage was denied. THEre was no acknowledgment of the borrowings made by the first defendant. THE letter dated 20.1.1986 was also denied as also the agreement to pay interest. THE plaintiff had obtained signatures in blank papers, blank promissory notes and blank stamp papers and after receiving the entire amounts had misused those papers to extract money from the first defendant. THE suit should be dismissed".