Swamikkannu, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of the Judgment that had been delivered by the learned District Judge, Pudukkottai in O.S. No. 5 of 1975 on 24.2.1979, dismissing the suit with costs for the recovery of Rs. 20,840 due under a mortgage and also directing lawyer's fee one set.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant executed the suit mortgage on 10.4.1974 for Rs. 20,000 agreeing to pay interest at 6% per annum payable in two years, that if there was default in the repayment of the amount within the period prescribed, the first defendant should pay compound interest at the same rate with yearly rests, that on the evil advice of the first defendant he had issued a notice as if the mortgage was obtained by fraud and undue influence without any consideration passed, that because of the issue of the notice by the 1st defendant this suit had been filed even though two years time had not elapsed, that the first defendant was a major, that the first defendant appeared to have executed a release deed on 14.10.1974 in favour of his father, the second defendant and hence he had been added as a party and that the suit amount of Rs. 20,840 was due and payable with subsequent interest.

3. The first defendant put forth the defence that he was born on 20.2.1955, that at the time of the mortgage he had just emerged from minority, that he was the only son of his parents and he was living with his parents, that it was his father who was looking after the family that there was no need to borrow a large sum of Rs. 20,000, that one Chelliah Pillai preferred a complaint against the first defendant, his father, the plaintiff's husband and others, that when the investigation was pending the plaintiff's husband caught hold of the first defendant, kept him under duress with no chance to communicate with his father and other relations, threatened him with injury to person, property and reputation and plied him with drink and reduced him to a state of imbecility, that using the complaint and the police investigation which followed as a lever the plaintiff's husband and his henchmen compelled the first defendant to sign various documents the purport of which was not known to the first defendant, that this mortgage appeared to have been taken in the name of the plaintiff by her husband, that when he came to know of it he issued a notice immediately on 9.10.1974 and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The second defendant Alaga Pillai has inter alia contended that the plaintiff did not and could not advance any sum either for the alleged promissory note or the alleged payment of Rs. 9,000 mentioned in the document, that the suit mortgage bond was not supported by consideration, that the first defendant was not managing the properties, that there was no necessity for him to borrow large sums from the plaintiff or Sundara Thevar, that the release deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was true and valid document, that the plaintiff, her husband and Sundara Thevar all joined together and procured false documents like promissory notes, mortgage without paying any money, that the very dates of the impugned promissory notes viz., January 1974, March 1974 and April, 1974 would show the falsity of the transaction, that when the investigation on the complaint given by Chelliah Pillai was pending, the plaintiff and her husband and his henchmen appeared to have ushered him in the Sub-Registrar's Office under duress and threat, that the suit was premature and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the lower Court for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?

2. Whether the suit mortgage deed is not supported by consideration?

3. Whether the suit mortgage deed was executed by the defendant under duress as alleged by him in the written statement?

4. To what relief, are the parties entitled?

Additional issues framed on 21.