T.K.SATHIYANARAYANAN Vs. S.JAGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Defendant has filed C.R.P.PD.No.1278 of 2011 as against the Order dated 07.07.2010 in I.A.No.68 of 2010 in O.S.No.396 of 2003 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. The Petitioners/Defendants have filed C.R.P.PD.No.1279 of 2011 as against the Order dated 07.07.2010 in I.A.No.69 of 2010 in O.S.No.394 of 2003 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

(2.) THE Learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, while passing the orders in I.A.No.68 of 2010 in O.S.No.396 of 2003 [filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant under Order 13 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code] on 07.07.2010, has, among other things, specifically observed that '.. The relief claimed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not for the mortgage suit. The Court fee paid is under as per Section 22 of The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. There is no relief asked for preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property. The unregistered mortgage deed may be treated as agreement and the suit can be filed on the basis of the unregistered mortgage deed as a loan agreement. The decree claimed by the Plaintiff is for the personal decree against the Petitioner/Defendant. Further, the Exhibit A.1 is the Loan Agreement and it was executed by the Petitioners/Defendants in a stamp paper' etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) CHALLENGING the rejection order passed in I.A.Nos.68 and 69 of 2010 in O.S.Nos.396 and 394 of 2003 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Revision Petitioners), the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, while passing the impugned orders in I.A.Nos.68 and 69 of 2010 dated 07.07.2010 has not taken into account of an important fact that the two suits have been filed based on an unregistered mortgage deeds are not maintainable in law.