SOMANATH BARAMAN Vs. S V JAGANNATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is preferred against the decree in O. S. 45/65 on the file of the 1st Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 55,125.00 on the basis of a registered simple mortgage bond dated 4-10-1961, executed by the appellants herein in his favour. The bond was originally executed for rupees one lakh out of which the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 on 29-6-65 leaving a balance of Rs. 50,000.00 as due to the plaintiff. According to the terms of the mortgage bond the appellants agreed to pay monthly interest to the plaintiff under the mortgage bond and paid it punctually till January, 1965 and thereafter committed default. The plaintiff therefore issued for the balance of the principle and the interest that accrued till the date of the suit. The suit was filed on 15-10-65. The hypothecate under the mortgage bond is a house property comprised in Municipal No. 5-0-665, Gun foundry. Hyderabad specified in Schedule-A. The interest provided under the bond was at 95 per annum. The bond was executed and registered at Hyderabad, and the defendants appellants were residents of Hyderabad and the suit, therefore, came to be instituted in the Hyderabad Court.

(3.) The defendants admit the execution of the mortgage and the receipt of consideration. They however pleaded that the loan was taken for the investment by the defendants for their business, particularly for the acquisition of the land known as "Karbala Maidan" Secunderabad, that the plaintiff should wait till the complete sale of entire Karbala Maidan, that the plaintiff is aware of the steps taken by the defendants for the sale of the said property but has unnecessarily come to Court in a haste and, therefore, the suit was premature. They also pleaded that in any event having regard to the payment of interest every month, the rate of interest charged is excessive and the debt is liable to be scaled down. They further pleaded as follows:- "These defendants understand that the plaintiff is a money-lender within the meaning of "Money Lenders Act" and the suit was therefore not maintainable" The defendants therefore, pray for the dismissal of the suit.