The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of determining the age of the ink on disputed documents to establish the defense in a mortgage dispute.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order, dated 19.01.2023, dismissing the petition in I.A. No. 666 of 2022 in O.S. No. 10 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send Exs.A.13, A.18, A.19, A.20, A.26 to A.31 to an expert to find out the age of the ink on these documents.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in I.A. No. 666 of 2022. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs.

3. The suit for recovery of money was filed by the respondents against the petitioner by enforcing a mortgage deed.

The plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.01.1997 from the 1st plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a demand promissory note in his favour on the even date. The defendant deposited the title deeds relating to his property situated in Godarigunta of Kakinada (‘A’ schedule) and thereby created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in his favour evidencing the same. The defendant has also executed a memorandum of the said deposit of title deed in favour of 1st plaintiff on 29.01.1997. Thus, the defendant borrowed the said amount, and thereby, created an equitable mortgage in favour of 1st plaintiff mortgaging ‘A’ schedule property for due discharge of the above debt. The defendant further borrowed another sum of Rs.70,000/- on 27.01.1997 from the 2nd plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a demand promissory note in her favour on the even date, and with a view to give security deposited the title deed relating to his property situated at Godarigunta of Kakinada (‘B’ schedule) with the 2nd plaintiff at Kakinada on 28.01.1997 and created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in her favour. The defendant further borrowed another sum of Rs.30,000/- on 03.02.1997 from the 2nd plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a demand promissory note in her favour. On verification after adjustment of the last payments made by the defendant on 26.01.2009 viz., Rs.1,29,400/- to 1st plaintiff and Rs.62,840/- to 2nd plaintiff, in toto a sum of Rs.1,92,240/- and thereafter, the balance remainder amounts due from the defendant to the plaintiffs were arrived at Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs.3,75,000/- to 1st plaintiff + Rs.3,25,000/- to 2nd plaintiff) representing the principal and interest by then. The defendant executed a demand promissory note for Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of plaintiffs 1 & 2 on 26.01.2009 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant having an intention to continue the earlier existing mortgage, and thereby, extended the earlier security of interest for the balance remainder mutually arrived at for Rs.7,00,000/- on 26.01.2009 (properties mentioned at ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule) with the plaintiffs at Kakinada. Thereafter, the defendant failed to pay any amount in spite of repeated demands by plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs totally and stating that 1st plaintiff is the brother of Somireddy Babji who used to do finance business in the name and style of “Surya Finance” at Buddavarapu Vari Veedhi, near Masjid Centre, Kakinada. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the said Babji in the year 1997 with interest at the rate of Rs.3/- per month and at that time, Babji obtained the signatures of the defendant on white papers, blank promotes and stamp papers etc., along with the original documents. In the month of February, 1998, the defendant paid principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the said Babji in the presence of Mattapalli