B VENKATAPPAIAH Vs. T CH PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 176/79 in the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The respondents who are the plaintiffs filed the suit on a mortgage deed executed by the defendants, for Rs. 16,000/-. The defendants have taken various contentions in the written statement, that is about the execution and attestation of the mortgage deed, that it is not supported by consideration, that they are small fanners and so the debt is discharged and that the interest is penal and usurious and the suit claim is barred by limitation. The trial Court had framed appropriate issues and given findings rejecting all the contentions of the defendants and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by that the defendants preferred the appeal.

(2.) In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised four contentions : (1) that there is no proper execution of the document; (2) that it is not supported by consideration; (3) that the defendants are small farmers and so the suit debt is discharged and (4) the interest is penal and usurious. I will now consider each of the contentions.

(3.) The first contention is that the plaintiffs have not proved the execution and attestation of the suit mortgage deed which is marked as Ex. A-1. The mortgage deed as stated above is executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs. At the time of the execution of the mortgage deed the 4th defendant was minor and so It is executed by the 1st defendant on his behalf as the guardian. The document contained the thumb impressions of the 1st defendant, Bollineni Venkatappaiah, for himself and on behalf of his minor son, Bollineni Shankararao, the 4th defendant. It is also signed by defendant Nos. 2 & 3, i. e., Boliineni Ramaiah and Bollineni Sivaji. The thumb impressions of the 1st defendant or the signatures of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 on the suit document, Ex. A-1 are not disputed. There is also an endorsement on the reverse of the document that the execution of the document has been admitted by the 1st defendant for himself and on behalf of his minor son the 4th defendant and it is also admitted by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 and contained their signatures. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the document by defendant Nos. 1 to