RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 4 and 5 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and preliminary mortgage decree passed against the A-Schedule properties in favour of the State Bank of India for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,861 -20 Ps. with costs and subsequent interest.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The parties are referred to according to their ranks in the lower Court. The defendants-2 and 3, who were partners of the 1st defendant firm Sri Lakshminarayana timber Depot, obtained for the purpose of their business a sum of Rs. 20. 000/- from the plaintiff. State Bank of India under a promissory note dt 19-9-1970 executed by the 2nd defendant on be.- half of the 1st defendant firm as well as the 3rd defendant agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 11/4 over the State Bank advance rate at 8 3/4% with rises and falls thereto and with monthly rests. The effective rate of interest as on the date of the filing of the suit was 9 3/4% per annum. The defendants 1 to 3 also pledged with the Bank the stock of timber and executed an Agreement of hypothecation. Myneni Raghavayya, the undivided father of the 2nd defendant, stood as a guarantor and executed a special agreement in favour of the Bank and also transferred to the plaintiff-Bank a promissory note for Rs 20,000/- executed in his favour by the 2nd defendant as Managing Partner of the 1st defendant firm. The third defendant as partner of the 1st defendant s firm created equitable mortgage of plaint-B-Schedule properties measuring ac. 1-66 cents of land by depositing his title deeds on 23-9-70 with th. e plaintiff-Bank at Repalle. The 2nd defendant s father as guarantor deposited his title deeds in respect of a-Schedule properties measuring Ac. 5. 71 cents at the plaintiff-Bank at repalle and created equitable mortgage in respect of the said property in favour of the Bank. Subsequently, the guarantor raghavayya died on 18-4-1972 intestate and undivided from his son, the 2nd defendant.

( 3 ) DURING his life time, the 2nd defendant s father Raghavayya who was alleged to have executed an agreement of sale Ex. B 1 on 7-2-1966 agreeing to sell Ac. 5-71 cents of A- schedule land for a sum of Rs. 9,500/- to defendants 4 and 5 and they were also alleged to have been put in possession of the said land on 15-7-1968 on payment of the full consideration by that date. As the loan amounts were not paid, the plaintiff-Bank got the available pledged stock sold and realised rs. 3,575/- and thereafter filed the suit on 19-9-73 for recovery of the balance amount of Rs 21,861-20 together with interest and costs against the defendants 1 to 3 personally by sale of the A and B schedule properties.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 remained exparte. The> 3rd defendant appeared and admitted to liability. Only the defendants 4 and 5, who were pleaded subsequently, contested the suit setting up a plea that they had purchased the a-Schedule properties under the agreement to sell Ex B1 dated 7-2-66 and they were put in possession of the same on 15-7-1968 on payment of full consideration, and that a regular registered sale deed Ex B 21 was executed by the 2nd defendant s father in their favour on 18-10-1973, and that they were bonafide transferees in good faith and without notice, and that the equitable mortgage created by the 2nd defendant s father in respect of the a-Schedule properties on 31-10-1970 in favour of the Bank was not valid or binding on them. The plaintiff-Bank alleged that the agreement of sale Ex. B1 and the sale deed Ex B-21 were all collusive, sham and fraudulent transactions not supported by consideration, and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff-Bank.

( 5 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the relevant issues :1) Whether the suit debt is true ? 2) Whether the alleged equitable mortgage by Raghavaiah, is true, valid and binding on defendants 4 and 5 ? 3) Whether the alleged equitable roortgage is supported by considara tion ?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document