1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 40 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, is the appellant herein.

2. The suit was filed for preliminary decree for redemption of the plaint schedule ornaments, which were pledged towards the loans and on determination of amount payable, to direct the defendant to return the same.

3. According to the case of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. On 22-05-1975 the plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs.2,000/- from the 1st defendant and pledged the schedule property ornaments and a document was executed. Subsequently, on 05-06-1975, on 28-06-1975 two loans of Rs.2,000/- each were obtained on the same pledge and defendant No.1 gave plaintiff a small chit signed by the 2nd defendant showing the principal amount as Rs.6,000/-. The rate of interest agreed was 6% per annum. As the plaintiff’s financial condition went on dwindling day by day, he could not redeem the pledge by paying the loan amount. About four months prior to filing of the suit, the defendants demanded more than Rs.20,000/- for discharge of the loan saying that the principal amount, for which, the plaint schedule ornaments were pledged totalled Rs.15,000/-. He suspected the bona fides of the defendants and sought the mediation of the elders Patnam Venkat Narsaiah, Vasam Satyanarayana, Sadu Narayana Muthyam Prakash, Dathrak China Rajaiah, Kadipe Yadagiri and Kandari Rajaiah. The said elders assembled in the house of Dathri Yadagiri on 09-05-1982 and called the defendants for settlement. Before the said elders, the defendants admitted the pledge of the plaint schedule ornaments with them by the plaintiff, but claimed Rs.15,000/-as principal amount and interest at the rate of 24% per annum. When the plaintiff showed the aforesaid documents to the elders, the defendants got angry and scolded the plaintiff and beat him with their slippers. In view of all the above facts, the plaintiff cannot redeem the pledged ornaments. Hence the suit.

4. As the 1st defendant died, defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were added, as they are the legal representatives of 1st defendant.

5. The defendants filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint with regard the pledge and also with regard to the issuance of the chit. There was no transaction in the manner pleaded by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant advanced a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 22-05-1975 to the plaintiff and obtained a promissory note. There is no other loan transaction. The alleged panchayat pleaded by the plaintiff is not true. It is only an attempt to save the limitation. The suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. The valuation is not correct. The suit is vexatious. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial court, for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff pledged gold ornaments mentioned in schedule on 22-05-1975 and obtained loan of Rs.2,000/- and also obtained loan of Rs.2,000/- on 05-06-1975 and Rs.2,000/- on 26-06-1975 from 1st defendant?

2) Whether defendants constitute Joint Hindu Family?

3) Whether 2nd defendant gave any chit on 28-06-1975 and if so, what is the effect?

4) Whether there was any panchayathi on 09-05-1982 as alleged in Plaint?

5) Whether defendant demanded Rs.20,000/- for discharge of loan?

6) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

7) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action?

8) Whether suit is maintainable?

9) Whether suit is within limitation?

10) To what relief the parties are entitled?

7. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-20 and Exs.X-1 to X-75.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.

9. The points that arise for