PYARIJAN Vs. PUTTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Hosur, dated 20. 12. 1999 made in I. A. No. 707/1999 in O. S. No. 121/1993, allowing the petition filed under Or. 13, R. 9 and Section 151 CPC and holding that the document is inadmissible in evidence. The Plaintiff is the revision Petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- repayable in three years. In lieu of interest, the Defendants are said to have hypothecated the mulberry crops in S. No. 103 50 cents. To that effect, the Defendants 1 and 2 have executed an agreement on 8. 1. 1992, wherein they have acknowledged the receipt of the amount. The Defendants have not repaid the amount. Hence the Plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendants calling upon them to allow her to draw water from the well to do mulberry crop plantation or pay back the amount. The Defendants though received the notice did not reply the notice nor paid the amount and also not complied with the demand of the notice. Hence the suit has been filed directing the Defendants to pay Rs. 15,000/ -.

(3.) DENYING the averments in the Plaint, Defendants have filed Written Statement inter-alia contending that the alleged document is possessory mortgage which should be on stamped papers for proper value and they should have been registered. For want of registration and insufficiency of stamps the document is inadmissible in evidence. The Plaintiff's husband wanted the second Defendant to be his farm servant. It was agreed that the Plaintiff would pay Rs. 5000/- to the second Defendant, for which the Plaintiff's husband took the thumb impression and signature of the Defendant in blank stamp papers and the same has been created as a loan transaction. The Plaintiffs have neither borrowed the amount nor have the means to pay the amount.