A mortgage under S. 58(a) of the Transfer of Property Act can secure not only existing debts but also future debts, and the property offered as security can be used to recover amounts covered by promissory notes or other future debts.

D. Sreedevi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 7/89 of the District Court, Thrissur, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 208/83 of the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry. The official receiver appointed by the District Court, Palakkad for the administration of the estate of M.N. Venkitasubramania lyer and Sons and Narasimha Financing Company in insolvency proceedings in I.P. 3/76 and I.P. 4/76 is the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial court. Defendants 2 to 5 are the respondents.

2. The first defendant in the suit, who was the father of the other defendants/ respondents was a subscriber of a kuri conducted by M.N. Venkitasubramania Iyer & Sons. The kuri amount was Rs. 10,000/- having 50 tickets of Rs. 200/- each and to run for 50 months from 15.12.1972. The first defendant, who was a subscriber to one ticket, prized the kuri for Rs. 6,990/- at the 12th instalment held on 15.11.1973 and received the amount on 20.12.1973 under Ext. A1 receipt executed by the 1st and 2nd defendant. The letter of acknowledgement was executed by defendants 1 and 2 undertaking to pay 37 future instalments at the rate of Rs. 200/- under Ext. A2. Along with Exts. A1 and A2, the deceased first defendant and respondents herein deposited the title deeds in respect of the suit property with the intention to create a mortgage and to secure the amounts already due, and amounts which may become due thereafter from any or all of them under any promissory note, loan, kuri amount or other transactions, but upto a limit of Rs. 20,000/-. The 2nd defendant took another loan of Rs. 3130 from the company after executing a pronote. From 38th instalment onwards the defendants committed default of payment of instalments. Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount including Rs. 3,130/- together with interest due under Ext. A5 promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. The second defendant has received Rs. 3,130/ from the company by executing a pronote on 8.4.1976 with an undertaking to pay on demand together with 18% interest. It is also alleged in the plaint that the amount covered by the pronote is also secured by virtue of the mortgage created on 20.12.1973. The defendant did not repay the pronote amount. Hence the plaintiff sues for a charge of the defaulted kuri amount as well as the amount covered by the pronote.

4. Defendants 2 to 4 and 5 together filed a written statement. According to them, the first defendant never joined the kuri as alleged. They would state that kuri was run by the second defendant, that these defendants have not received any kuri amount as alleged, that they have handed over some blank papers for the first defendant for the purpose of kuri transaction, that the defendant 3 onwards are not liable for any debt incurred by defendants 1 and 2, that even if the defendants 1 and 2 had joined the kuri and received some amount, the other defendants are not liable and that defendants 3 to 5 are not liable for the amount covered by the promissory note. They also filed an additional written statement contending that the suit is bad for non joinder of parties as the first defendant, their father, passed away on 10.7.1974, even prior to the date of institution of the suit.

5. The trial court, after taking evidence, decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realize Rs. 4,476/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realisation creating a charge on the plaint schedule property and from the assets of the first defendant to the extent that devolved on defendants 2 to 5. The court disallowed the claim to realize the amount covered by the pronote as the pronote is barred by limitation.

6. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the plaintiff filed A.S. 7/89 before the District Court, Thrissur. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Aggrieve