NANDIMANDALAM ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. JAINAB BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in OS No. 101/83 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Proddatur preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree made therein dated 26-7-1985. 2002 Supp. (1) FR-F-33

(2.) The plaintiff is the respondent in the appeal. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as "plaintiff and "defendant".

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent had instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,715/- with interest payable by the appellant/defendant and also for subsequent interest and costs by sale of the plaint schedule hypothica. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the plaintiff on 7-1-1972 and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff hypothecating the schedule mentioned property as security for the said debt. It was marked as Ex.A1. The defendant had undertaken to repay the debt with interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests. The defendant paid the interest regularly to plaintiff till December, 1975 and subsequent thereto default was committed. But however, certain part payments were made. Exs.A2, A3, A4 are the endorsements and Ex.A5 is the office copy of the notice issued by the advocate dated 8-11-1982 and Ex.A6 is the reply notice issued by the defendant dated 22-12-1982. Since the defendant had not discharged the balance debt due under the mortgage deed, the suit was instituted. The defendant-appellant herein had filed a written statement in which the truth, validity and genuineness of the mortgage deed was not at all disputed. The defendant pleaded that the payments made were not properly given credit to and that the claim of interest is excessive. On the strength of the respective pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Are the payments pleaded by the defendant true? 2. Is the claim of interest putforth in suit usurious? 3. Is the plaintiff not entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant? 4. To what relief? The Court below had recorded the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff in the suit and DW1, the defendant in the suit and had marked Exs.A1 to A6 and after detailed discussion Issue Nos.1 to 4 had been answered and ultimately a preliminary decree was passed granting some time for redemption. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant had preferred the present appeal.