ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. AYESHA NATCHIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karaikkal decreeing the plaintiff's suit on foot of a mortgage executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, and granting a preliminary decree in her favour. The defendant in his answer contended that the mortgage was unsupported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 1400. He also pleaded a partial discharge. The Court below rejected the evidence of the defendant, accepted that of the plaintiff and fully decreed the plaintiff's claim.

(2.) THE first point that arises for determination is whether the suit mortgage is unsupported by consideration to the tune of Rs. 1400 Ex. A.1 is the notarial deed of mortgage admittedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 29 -9 -1965 for Rs. 11400. In this document the defendant has clearly admitted that he received the entirety of this amount 'out of the view' of the Notair and the attestors to the document. His present contention is that a sum of Rs. 1400 out of the sum of Rs. 11400 was retained by the plaintiff for adjustment of future interest at a higher rate plea was not put forward by him, on his receipt of the notice, which the plaintiff sent the defendant prior to the suit. In fact, the defendant did not care to reply to the plaintiff's notice at all. What is worse, the defendant's own account book Ex.B.2 says that on 28 -9 -1965, that is to say, a day prior to the execution of Ex. A.1, he received the entire sum of Rs. 11400 from the plaintiff. Nothing could be more disastrous than this written admission in the defendant's own account book. The court blow rightly rejected the defendant's case in this behalf.

(3.) IT is next contended that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 1000 towards the bond on 26 -2 -1969. One wonders why this payment has not been endorsed on Ex. A. 1 in the manner in which the payment of Rs. 1824 was endorsed. No receipt was also obtained from the plaintiff in respect of this payment. The uncorroborated and unilateral entry made by the defendant in his own account book has no evidentiary value, and it has been rightly discredited by the Court below. This point is answered against the appellant.