The court clarified the entitlement of the plaintiff to a charge on specific properties, rejected the claim for interest at an enhanced rate, and allowed the recovery of a specific sum paid by the plaintiff.

1. These appeals arise from the decree in a suit for recovery of money. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and the 6th defendant is the second defendant's wife. Defendants 1 to 6 executed an overdraft agreement Ext. A dated 24-10-1947 to the plaintiff Bank for Rs. 1,25000/-. They also executed a promissory note Ext. B on the same day as collateral Security for the loan. An equitable mortgage of the immovable properties described in Schedule A appended to the plaint was also made in favour of the plaintiff, by deposit of title deeds, Ext. D-2 being the memorandum. Items Nos. 9 to 11 in Schedule.8 are described in schedule B. These belong to defendants 2 and 6. Sometime after the commencement of the transaction, defendants 1 to 6 requested the plaintiff to release the charge over these items on receipt of Rs. 15,400/-. They offered to furnish additional security for releasing these items and the properties in the schedule C were given as additional security. On 7-11-1947 the plaintiff accepted this proposal and sent a reply Ext H. Amounts were borrowed by defendants 1 to 6 for the purchase of some buses of which the 4 buses described in schedule D were given as security for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- out of the sum advanced by the plaintiff. There was a prior charge on the buses in favour of the 7th defendant and he had sued in O.S. N. 199 of 1123 of the District Court of Anjikaimal. The plaintiff therefore claimed a subsequent charge on the buses. There was a further claim for recovery of a sum of Rs. 335-10-0 alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff when the properties in schedule A were brought to sale for recovery of arrears of incometax due from defendants 1 to 6. According to the plaintiff, though the original rate of interest was only 7 1/2% per annum it was raised later to 81/2% from 31-3-1949 and the defendants were liable to pay interest at that rate. Defendants 7 to 11 were impleaded as persons having some interest in the properties. The 6th defendant died after the institution of the suit and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 12 to 19. The 7th defendant was sought to be adjudged insolvent during the pendency of the suit and defendants 20 and 21 are the interim receivers appointed in the insolvency proceedings. The plaintiff's suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,27,167-3-11 from defendants 1 to 6 and the properties in schedules A to D. Defendants 1 to 11 contested the suit and their contentions so far as the same are necessary for the decision of these appeals alone need be stated. The 1st defendant contended that the properties described as Item No. 8(a) in schedule A were not liable for the plaint claim, as title deeds relating to the same have not been deposited along with other deeds of title. He further contended that the improvements on the properties as well as the buildings thereon could not be made liable for the plaint claim. Defendants 2 and 6 filed the joint written statement contending that they were liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 15,400/- under Ext. H, that besides the properties in schedule B, the second defendant was entitled to 1/4th of items 1 to 6 in Schedule A and the building bearing municipal No. 8/367 (old No. 8/356) in item 1 in schedule A, as those properties belonged to his deceased mother and as the building referred to above was constructed by him. According to these defendants share of the 2nd defendant in items 2 and 6 was also to be exonerated under Ext. H when payment of Rs. 15,400/- was made and since a sum of Rs. 17500/- had been deposited in the suit the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree charged on the 2nd defendant's interest in those items. The 10th defendant contended that the building in items 2 and 3 of schedule C was constructed by the 3rd defendant, that he had purchased the same from the 3rd defendant, on 8-12-1124 and that the building was not liable for the plaint claim. It was also stated that there was a