R. PERUMAL Vs. N. GURURAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant/Judgment Debtor who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

(2.) The 1st respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit in OS. No. 93/1990 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 95,000.00 with interest and subsequent cost based on Ex.A.1 - Pronote dated 29.04.1978 executed by the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff/1st respondent that based on Ex.A.1-Pronote that the defendants 1 and 3 are the partners of M/s. Lucky and Company and they borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 on 29.04.1978 from the plaintiff and also executed Ex.A.1-Suit Pronote for the amount received and they also undertook to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. It is further averred by the plaintiff that for the due repayment of the loan one S.A.Manjini Mudhaliar also created an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff by depositing the tile deeds as a collateral security for the repayment of Pronote consideration and despite very many demands, the defendants did not agree to pay the amount and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue Lawyer's Notice under Ex.A.2 and however, notices were returned to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff came forward to file the suit for recovery of money.

(3.) The defendants had entered appearance and filed their written statement refuting the allegations made in the plaint and would state that the suit is barred by limitation for the reason that the suit Pronote is dated 29.04.1978 and however, the suit was filed on 28.02.1990 and the defendants also took a stand that the defendants had actually borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 only from the plaintiff and they have have discharged their duties promptly and in any event, the interest claimed on the principal amount is excess and would also contend that no equitable mortgage has been created with Majini Mudhaliar for due and prompt repayment of amount under Ex.A1 and prays for dismissal of the suit.