KARUMANCHI SUBBA RAO Vs. DESU SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.No. 63 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla is the appellant. He filed the suit for recovery of the balance due under a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.8.1971 executed by respondents 1 and 2 who are husband and wife in his favour for Rs.17,000/- with interest at 12% per annum with yearly, rests hypothecating the property specified in the schedule appended to the plaint, after giving credit to Rs.50,000/- paid there under.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the 1st respondent is that he has neither title to nor has possession over the hypo- theca and never intended to create a mortgage over the plaint schedule property and that appellant by intoxicating him with liquor and other intoxicants obtained his signatures on several blank papers. 2nd respondent, who utilised his services for opening a factory, abandoned him and so he has been living separately from her by doing agricultural coolie work, and by taking the lands of others on lease. So, he has no need to borrow an amount of Rs.17,000/. No amount was paid to him under the suit mortgage bond. One person filed I.P.No. 18 of 1971 to adjudge him as an insolvent.

(3.) The case, in brief, of the 2nd respondent, is that the mortgage bond relied upon by the appellant is not true and is not supported by consideration. As she was not accustomed to come out frequently, she allowed her husband [1st respondent] to act as her agent for constructing the building in her vacant site. Taking advantage of his friendship with 1st respondent, the appellant under the pretext of taking the plaint schedule property on lease got prepared a mortgage bond and got it registered by applying fraud on her. The alleged payment of Rs.5,000/- under the suit mortgage bond is not true I.P.No. 18 of 1971 is a make believe affair. The said debt is barred by the provisions of Act 7 of 1977.