N. Kumar, J.

This is the defendants' regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, directing the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 18,52,310/- with interest at 23% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and interest at 18% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to with respect to their position in the original suit.

3. The plaintiff has been carrying on his business in Mangalore under the name and style M/s. Shet & Co. The 1st defendant is a partnership Firm, of which defendants 2 to 4 are the partners; 5th defendant is the GPA holder of defendants 2 to 4. As could be seen from the averments in the plaint, the following amounts were lent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 5.

Date of transaction	Amount of money lent	Alleged Documents
12.08.1997	Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 1,75,000/-	Demand promissory note
10.09.1998	Rs. 1,50,000/-	-do-
03.11.1998	Rs. 75,000/-	-do-
04.12.1998	Rs. 1,00,000/-	-do-
28.09.1999	Rs. 2,00,000/-	A letter of confirmation acknowledging previous transactions, promissory note and a cheque dated 08.10.1999 for Rs. 11,20,000/-

Thus, in all, an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- is the principal amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants executed separate On Demand promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing and undertaking to repay the respective amounts together with interest thereon at 23% p.a. The 5th defendant mortgaged the immovable property more fully described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint by deposit of title deeds enlisted in the 'B' schedule. The 5th defendant by letter dated 12.08.1997 confirmed the said deposit. The defendants made payment of only Rs. 80,000/- and thereby committed default. The cheques issued by the defendants for repayment of the amounts was returned 'dishonoured'. Therefore, the plaintiff also launched criminal prosecution against the defendants under Section 138 of N.I.Act after issuing statutory notice. When the outstanding amount remained unpaid, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,20,000/- and interest of Rs. 7,32,310/- at the rate of 23% p.a. on Rs. 11,20,000/- from 25.11.1999 up to 26.09.2002, in all, a sum of Rs. 18,52,310/-.

4. On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. Defendants 3 and 5 filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim. They denied all the allegations in the plaint, they denied the promissory notes, issue of cheques, deposit of title deeds and execution of confirmation letter and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant firm represented by its partners defendants 2 to 4 through their General Power of Attorney holder defendant No. 5, also in his individual capacity as co-obligant had availed a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- on 12.08.97, by executing on Demand Promissory Notes dated 12.08.97 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,75,000/-respectively in favour of plaintiff and agreed to pay interest thereon at 23% p.a.?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the said defendants also availed further loans in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-on 10.09.98, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 03.11.98, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04.12.98 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.09.99 by executing Demand Promissory Notes of the said respective sums in favour of plaintiff and agreed to pay interest on the sums lent at 23% p.a.?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the 5th defendant had validly given the plaint 'A' schedule property, as mortgage security by depositing the 'B' schedule mentioned title deeds in favour of th