An unregistered mortgage deed could be taken as an agreement of loan and the loan could be proved on the basis of the admission in the document itself.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 11.6.2002, made in I.A.No.305/2001 in O.S.No.136/2000, on the file of the Addl. District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.6.2002, made in I.A.No.305/2001 in O.S.No.136/2000, on the file of the Addl. District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

3. The suit in O.S.No.136/2000 has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/ defendants for recovery of money with interest. The said suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents by filing a written statement. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.305/2001 to permit him to mark an unregistered mortgage deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as an Exhibit. It was the case of the plaintiff in that application that the suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered mortgage deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore reliance was placed by the plaintiff on the said document for proving the loan amount. Hence the said application was filed by the plaintiff for admitting the document as an Exhibit. A memo of objection was filed by defendants/respondents on the ground that the said document is not duly stamped and registered in accordance with law and hence they protested for marking the said document as an Exhibit.

4. The trial court by an order dated 11.6.2002 dismissed the application on the ground that this document filed by the plaintiff is not a registered one. It is also stated by the trial court that any document pertaining to immovable property with the value of more than a sum of Rs.100/-, the said document has to be necessarily registered. In this case, the document being a mortgage document and the value of it is more than Rs.100/- non-registration of the same cannot be accepted and the document cannot be marked as an Exhibit. Therefore on this ground, the trial court did not accept the case of the plaintiff and rejected the same. Challenging the said order, the above revision petition has been filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents though served, there was no appearance by them either in person or through counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner only wanted to prove the payment of loan amount to the respondents herein and for this limited purpose the document in question is admissible in evidence. He further contended that the petitioner is not relying on the document to prove the mortgage liability of the respondents and therefore the non-registration of the document cannot be held against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions in support of his contention:-

(i) AIR 1931 Madras 124 (JAGANNADHAM v. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, MADRAS).

(ii) AIR 1934 MADRAS 178 (LAKSHMAN v. JAYARAM)

(iii) 1939 MLJ 664 (KODA NAYAKAMMA v. VENKAYYA)

(iv) 2001-1-L.W.613 (JOSEPH, P. v. M.T.SANTIAGU)

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. (i) In AIR 1931 Madras 124 cited supra, the Division Bench of this court held as follows:-

"The learned Judge however considered that it was open to him to give a decree upon the promissory note and against this decree the defendant has appealed. The decree was preceded by an order allowing amendment of the plaint, so as to comprise a prayer for a personal decree upon the promissory note. This order has been attacked before us, principally on the ground that when it was made, the claim under the promissory note was time barred. But I do not think we need consider whether or not the amendment should have been allowed because on the plaint as it originally stood it seems clear that a decree of this character could be granted.”

Apart from a general prayer:

"for such further and other reliefs as to this Honorable Court may seem meet or the nature of the case may require."

Para 14 of the plaint asks that t