S.N. Satyanarayana, J :-

This is defendant's appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.6/1991 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chikkaballapur.

2. The parties herein are referred to by their rank in the Court below for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Plaintiff case is defendant approached them for credit facility in a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- which was sanctioned on 15.02.1998. In this behalf defendant executed a promote agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 6.5% p.a., over and above the RBI minimum rate at 16.6%, compounded quarterly. The said loan was secured by deposit of title documents pertaining to suit schedule property. The equitable mortgage was created by plaintiff under letter dated 15.02.1988 evidencing deposit of title deeds with list of documents at Schedule "A" and description of the property at schedule "B". The defendant is Managing Director of M/s. Adap (Pvt.) Limited. The said company had also availed several credit facilities for its business and equitable mortgage was created in respect of said loan also. Since the present loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- was granted to defendant in his individual name, suit is filed against him for recovery of the loan amount on the security of suit schedule property.

4. Though the defendant utilised the entire credit facility, did not repay the loan as agreed. At the time of borrowing, plaintiff had also executed a letter agreeing to clear the loan in thirty-six monthly installment of Rs. 3,600/- and last installment at Rs. 4,000/-. Since the defendant failed to repay any of the installments, plaint if issued legal notice on 20.10.1990 after the said notice defendant attended a meeting convened by plaintiff in its office on 08.11.1990. In the said meeting, he refused to commit himself for repayment of loan and also to execute acknowledgment of debt for outstanding 1011n amount. Hence suit for recovery was filed against him in the Court of Ciyil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, for the reason that the mortgaged suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of the said Court.

5. In the suit, defendant was duly served, he filed written statement admitting sanction of loan for Rs. 1,30,000/- and execution of Promissory Note and several other documents in connection with the said loan transaction. It is his defence that the documents executed by him are printed forms with several blank space in it, the said blanks were not filed with material details pertaining to loan suit transaction. They were left blank at the time he executed the said documents. They are filled up subsequently by plaintiff’s officers without his knowledge. Therefore they are void and unenforceable documents. Initially in the written statement he admitted delivery of documents to plaintiff and execution of letter describing as the letter evidencing deposit of title deeds. Further, it is also his case that at the time of execution of those documents, Schedule 'A' and 'B', the said letter was blank, which according to him is filled up at a later stage. Hence mortgage is vitiated no consideration was passed on to him under the Demand Promissory Note. He also contended that he has not availed any credit facility in respect of M/s. Adap (Pvt.) Limited and he is not liable to repay the loan extended to the said Company. He admit having attended the meeting on 08.11.1990 in plaintiff premises, state that he refused to execute acknowledgment of debt, as he is not liable to repay the loan.

6. With this pleading, the Court below framed the following issues:

1. Whether defendant proves that his signatures to suit documents like promote etc., were obtained on blank papers?

2. Whether defendant proves that suit promote was not supported by consideration?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has mortgaged the suit property to plaintiff?

4. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

5. Whether plaintiff is