JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Bhaskara Laxmi, the Counsel for the appellants-defendants and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, the Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Sri Satyanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel had taken this Court through the recitals of Ex. A.1 and would contend that the said document does not specify carrying of any interest. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Ex. A.2, being an un-registered agreement, is inadmissible and even otherwise, the same was not acted upon. The learned Counsel also would contend that this cannot be treated as contemporaneous agreement. In the case of breach regarding possession, the mortgagee may have to file a suit under Section 68(1)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would submit that the suit for recovery of money is barred by time and had referred to Articles 63 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Counsel also would contend that the Court has no power to grant interest prior to the suit. The learned Counsel also would contend that the questi