T BHASKARAN Vs. VIDHYA NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated 5. 9. 2003 in O. S. No. 1013 of 2002, passed by the VI Additional Judge, City civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant/defendant seeking for a preliminary Decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7,16,250/- due on the loan amount with subsequent interest at 15% per annum; for a Decree for Rs. 23,000/- being the auction and legal charges; in the event of failure on the part of the defendant, to sell the mortgaged property and the proceeds to be applied towards the payment of the amount and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, to pass a decree against the defendant directing to pay the plaintiff the deficient amount with interest 6% per annum and for costs of the suit.

(3.) BRIEFLY the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of rs. 3,00,000/- repayable with interest at 15% per annum and executed a Mortgage deed dated 24. 7. 1992 and it was registered on 24. 7. 1992 in Document No. 2141/92 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam for securing the repayment of the loan amount. It is further stated in the plaint that the mortgaged property is an undivided half share in the house and ground of an extent of 3170 sq. ft. , bearing premises Nos. 52 and 53, Strahans Road, Perambur Barracks, Chennai-600 012. According to the plaintiff, the defendant also filed the suit in os. No. 7806/1983 against Karpagambal and others for the relief of partition and for rendition of accounts and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 3,750/- towards interest in the year 1994 on the mortgage loan. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant failed and neglected to pay the interest every month as per the terms and conditions in the Mortgage deed and the plaintiff took out an Application in I. A. No. 17822/1997 for impleading herself as party 12th defendant in the suit and the same was allowed and the defendant obtained an interim injunction against the plaintiff in the partition suit from selling the mortgaged property by auction. The plaintiff has further stated that inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed and neglected to repay the loan amount and the plaintiff demanded payment by issuing notice to the defendant through her counsel and the defendant acknowledged the notice but failed and neglected to pay the amount. Hence the suit.