ORDER: The defendants in O.S. No.155 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, are the appellants in this appeal. Heard, Mr.V. Sundar for the appellants and Ms.Sindhuja for Mr.T.R. Rajaraman for the respondents. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be refereed as arrayed before the trial Court.

2. The respondent herein instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.73,274.51, being the amount due on the mortgage dated 22.9.1961 with subsequent interest, and the present suit has been instituted to enforce the suit mortgage and recover the amount due inclusive of interest.

3. According to the plaintiff, on 22.9.1961 defendants 2, 3 and Sigapi Achi borrowed Rs.8,500 and to secure the said sum they executed a deed of mortgage. The said Sigapi Achi had executed the mortgage for herself and on behalf of defendants 1 and 4 as their agent and as guardian of the 5th defendant. As per the stipulations contained in the deed of mortgage the defendants are liable to pay the entire suit claim. The suit amount was borrowed to discharge certain earlier pending decree debts as well. Sigapi Achi passed away. Defendants 2 and 3 on 21.9.1971 remitted Rs.50 and made an endorsement on the mortgage deed. Once again on 21.9.1982 the 2nd defendant paid Rs.25 towards the mortgage debt and made an endorsement. In view of the said two acknowledgments, the suit claim is not barred by limitation. Despite the repeated demands and notices, the defendants have failed to discharge the mortgage debt and hence the present suit.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying the two acknowledgments. The 2nd defendant in other respects adopted the written statement filed by the 5th defendant. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 adopted the written statement filed by the 5th defendant. The defendants admitted the execution of the mortgage deed. The alleged two repayments and acknowledgments are denied and these acknowledgments will not bind the defendants and the suit claim is barred by limitation. The defendants are entitled to claim benefit under the Tamil Nadu Agriculturist Debt Relief Act, as they are agriculturists. The claim of interest is usurious and that the plaintiff is not entitled to compound rate of interest. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff’s husband, a member of the Bar was the defendants’ advocate and he had appeared in number of cases. According to the defendants, no amount had been advanced towards the discharge of various debts. The plaintiff’s husband secured a mortgage debt taking advantage of the relationship between the plaintiff’s husband and the defendants. The defendants have been maintaining accounts as is being done in the family of Nattukottai Chettiar and as per their books of account maintained in the regular course, the entire mortgage loan had already been discharged. After receipt of notice, when the defendants approached the plaintiff’s husband to return the mortgage deed, the plaintiff’s husband assured them to look into the accounts and return the mortgage deed. However in the meanwhile, the present suit has been filed. According to the defendants they have remitted Rs.18,350 from time to time and it is double the principal amount advanced under the mortgage deed. When the defendants insisted for an endorsement being made on the mortgage debt, the plaintiff’s husband assured that he had noted down the remittances and on a later date after looking into accounts, he will return the mortgage deed after discharge. The plaintiffs husband, after going through the accounts assured that he will return the mortgage deed. The plaintiff’s husband passed away and thereafter the present suit has been filed. The defendants are not liable to pay any amount as the entire mortgage debt has already been discharged.

5. On the said pleadings the Court below framed the following six issues for consideration:

(a) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge compound ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document