SANJAY INVESTMENTS LTD Vs. NEPAL CHANDRA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revi-sional application at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against an order dated April 18, 1980 passed in Title Suit No. 99 of 1976 of the 3rd Court of Ld. Subordinate Judge at Alipore.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for a mortgage decree for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs lent and advanced to the defendant on different dates together with interest. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint in brief is as follows: On or about May 23, 1972 the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff agreed to lend and advance various sums of money up to a maximum limit of Rs. 5 lacs. On the same date, in consideration of the agreement the defendant deposited with the plaintiff all the title deeds of lands and structures situate at premises No. 1, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Calcutta with intent to create a security thereon for repayment of the loan to be advanced to the defendant. On the 17th August, 1972, the defendant declared in writing the terms and conditions on which the plaintiff agreed to lead the money and the title deeds had been delivered to the plaintiff for creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The declaration was recorded in a duly registered document dated the 17th August 1972. Pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff advanced a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- between 18th August 1972 and 28th August, 1974, to the defendants. The defendant is said to have repaid a sum of Rs. 36,000/- only towards interest leaving a balance of Rupees 7,06,404.06 p. inclusive of interest calculated up to 15th June, 1976. The suit was for recovery of the sum by enforcement of the mortgage.

(3.) The defendant was contesting the suit by filing a written statement. The defendant however was examined on commission. Thereafter in course of hearing, while the plaintiff's witness was being examined, the memorandum dated 23rd May, 1972 and the declaration dated 17th August, 1972 were tendered for being admitted in evidence and marked exhibits. In view of the objections raised by the defendant, they were marked X and XI for identification. The objections were ultimately disposed of by the impugned order.