PECHIAMMAL Vs. PUNNAIVANAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No.49 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga is the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11206-30 due on Exs.A.1 10 A 3 deeds of mortgages executed by the appellant in favour of one Veerammal. Ex. A.1 dated 8-5-1961 is for Rs.3000. Ex A.2 dated 12-4-1962 is for Rupees 1500. Ex. A.3 dated 2-12-1966 is for Rs. 4500. Under Exs.A.4, dated 1-6-1972, the original mortgage Veerammal; assigned her rights under Exs. A.1 to A.3 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.11790. The rate of interest payable under the three mortgage documents is 12% per annum. The plaintiff respondent has further averred that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1680 towards interest due till 31-12-1966 and the whole amount of interest due till 1-9-1969 and the necessary endorsement therefor had been made on Ex. A.1. It is further admitted that the respondent had received Rs.100 each on 6-9-1970, 17-101970, 10-12-1970and 8-2-1971, though the said payments had not been endorsed on the mortgage documents. As regards Ex. A.2 it is admitted that the appellant had paid Rs.100 each on 1-3-1971, 20-4-1971, 7-6-1971, 7-71971, 5-9-1971 and a further sum of R.60 on 22-5-1971, without making any endorsement. As regards Ex. A.3 interest has been similarly paid till 1-11-1969 and necessary endorsement made on A.3. The original mortgagor also paid Rs.100each on 15-10-1971. 8-11-1971, 6-12-1971 and 8-2-1972, but they have not been duly endorsed on Ex. A.3. Thereafter on 1-6-1972, the original mortgage assigned her rights under Exs. A.1. to A.3 to the appellant under Ex. A.4. dated 1-6-1972, for Rs.11,790 subsequent to the assignment the appellant himself paid a sum of Rs.100 on 13-8-1972 towards Ex. A.1 Rs. 100 0n 13-11973 towards Ex. A.2. and Rs.100 each on 10-2-1973 and 12-3-1973 towards Ex. A.3. th0ugh the respondent issued a notice on 13-7-1973 under Ex. A.5. the appellant had not paid the balance due under the three mortgage documents. Its is further averred in the plaint that the defendant is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Relief Act (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1938)as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 1973.

(2.) The appellant in his written statement admitted having received the consideration of Rs.3000 under Ex. A.1, and Rs.1500 under Ex. A.2. He however pleaded that Ex. A.3mortgage was not fully supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.4500 but that the same was supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 2000. The sum of Rs. 2500 as per Ex. A.3. represented the outstanding of interest on Exs. A.1 and A.2. upto the date of Ex A.3 and that was how the consideration for Ex A.3. came to be stated as Rs. 4500. The appellant further claimed that he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972). Consequently he claimed that the amounts paid towards the three mortgages should be appropriated towards the principal of Rs.6500 He further stated that he would be liable to pay the balance of the principal amount only with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The two main issues raised by the court below for decision are as follows- 1. whether the suit mortgage bond executed by the defendant in favour of the original mortgagee Veerammal for a consideration of Rs. 4500 on 2-12-1966 (third mortgage bond) is not supported by consideration to an extent of Rs.2500? 2. whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (38 of 1972)?

(3.) On issue No.1 the trial court found that Ex. A.3 mortgage was fully supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 4500 and not merely to the extent of Rs.2000 as pleaded by the appellant. On issue No.2, the trial court found that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 1972.