Expression title deeds means original copies of title deeds and not copies.

Bellie, J.

1. The plaintiff who lost his case for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,705 in the trial Court is the appellant in this appeal.

2. His case is as follows:

The first defendant was due to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.15,000 and in respect thereof he executed a promissory note Ex.A.4 in favour of the plaintiff on 1.12.1971 repayable with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. On the same day with intent to create a security for the said debt the first defendant deposited title deed of the properties, Ex. Al--Registration copy of a Partition deed, with the plaintiff at Coimbatore and he also gave a memorandum in writing Ex.A.5 detailing the particulars of the document deposited. Inspite of demands the first defendant failed to pay the amount. The second defendant obtained a decree against the first defendant on the foot of an alleged mortgage in O.S. No. 211 of 1973 and the third defendant has purchased the property from the first defendant on 21.11.1973 and therefore these two defendants have been impleaded.

3. The first defendant in his written statement admitted execution of a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as alleged but contended that it is not supported by consideration. He pleaded that on 22.11.1970 he had executed two promissory notes, one for Rs.25,000 in favour of the plaintiff and another for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the plaintiff's son and the plaintiff told the first defendant that for those two promissory notes a balance of Rs.10,000 was outstanding and for that outstanding he insisted that the first defendant must execute a promissory note for Rs.15,000 and then only the said two promissory notes would be returned. Upon this the first defendant executed the suit promissory note for Rs.15,000 and on 22.12.1971 he issued a cheque for Rs.10,000 which the plaintiff has realised and thus the entire amount due to the plaintiff has been discharged. It is further contended that the suit promissory note is not enforceable in law because no Refugee Relief Stamp has been affixed as required in law. Then it is denied that the first defendant deposited his title deed with the plaintiff and gave a memorandum as alleged. It is then pleaded that the plaintiff and the first defendant were carrying on a partnership business and in connection with that the plaintiff got from the first defendant blank papers with first defendant's signatures and with one such paper the plaintiff has created the alleged memorandum.

4. The second defendant in his written statement would contend that the first defendant was a subscriber to a chit conducted by it and on 1.8.1970 he received the chit prize of Rs.23,750 and for due payment of the remaining 38 instalments the first defendant executed a promissory note and on 19.5.1972 in security for payment of the amount due he deposited title deed of the properties with a memorandum. As the amount was not paid the second defendant filed a suit O.S. No. 211 of 1973 and obtained a preliminary decree. It further contended that the alleged suit mortgage is not a genuine transaction and it is the result of collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant to defraud this defendant of its decree amount.

5. The case of the third defendant is that she purchased the property on 21.11.1973 for Rs.24,500, and the alleged transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant is a fraudulent one and unenforceable. In any event this defendant is a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice of the defect in the title and thus she cannot be made liable for the alleged suit claim. She further contended that she effected improvements in the suit property to the value of Rs.21,000.

6. The trial Court on the above pleadings and on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration but it however further held that since it has not been affixed with Refugee Relief Stamp as required under law it is not enforceable. The trial Court further held that