DOODEKULA BABU SAHEB Vs. SAKALA KONDIAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 5653-12-0 being the principal and interest due on a mortgage deed dated 9-3-1946 executed by the defendants-respondents in favour of the Appellant's transferor's father for Rs. 5000/- repayable with interest at 6% per annum.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and a preliminary decree is passed in his favour, in terms of Ex. A-1 carrying interest only at 6% per annum. This appeal is only to the extent of the interest amount based on an agreement dated 9-3-1949 to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The plaint allegation was that the defendants executed the mortgage deed on 9-3-46 for Rs. 5000/- carrying interest at 6% per annum in favour of the plaintiff's transferor's father mortgaging the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff obtained a transfer of the mortgage on 21-4-52. The defendants borrowed Rs. 5000/- from Gunda Gurappa on 12-7-1947. The defendants paid Rs. 300/- towards interest due to the mortgagee. The mortgagee who was in urgent need of funds demanded the defendants to pay up the entire mortgage debt and threatened to take action in a Civil Court in the event of default. The defendants represented to him that they could not pay the entire loan and promised to pay additional interest to compensate him for the loss he sustained by borrowing at a higher rate of interest. In consideration of this promise, Gurappa, the mortgagee, dropped the threatened action. The defendants executed an agreement on a plain paper on 9-3-1949 promising to pay interest on the mortgage amount at 9% per annum. The plaintiff therefore claims the mortgage amount plus interest at the rate of 9% annum.

(3.) Defendants, raised a plea that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% per annum as the agreement was unregistered and unenforceable in law. They further stated that the document was a forged one.