Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
V. Sridhar
Versus
V. Srinivasan
C.R.P.(PD) No.1640 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on: 08-12-2008
Mortgage Deeds - Redemption of Mortgage - Sec.69A of the Transfer of Property Act - [Sec.69A of the Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and the principles governing such amendments. The plaintiff sought to amend the pleadings to deny execution of mortgage deeds, which was contradictory to his earlier admissions. The court held that such mutually destructive pleadings could not be allowed and the amendment would cause serious injustice to the other party. The trial court's dismissal of the amendment petition was upheld under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage deeds but later sought to amend the pleadings to deny execution of the mortgage deeds, contradicting his earlier admissions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment introduced a new case and would cause serious injustice to the other party. The trial court's dismissal of the amendment petition was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the pleadings to deny execution of mortgage deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutually destructive pleadings could not be allowed through amendment and that the proposed amendment would cause serious injustice to the other party.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's dismissal of the amendment petition was upheld. No costs were awarded.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 26.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.8878 of 2004 in O.S.No.1403 of 2004 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1403 of 2004 is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court made in I.A.No.8878 of 2004 filed by him under order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. on 6.03.2008, dismissing the application.
.3. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff filed O.S.No.1403 of 2004 for passing a decree for redemption of mortgage deed dated 19. 1993, for Rs.60,000/- (Document No.1831/93), Mortgage Deed dated 19. 1993, for Rs.80,000/-(Document No.1846/93), Mortgage Deed dated 20.9.1993, for Rs.60,000/-(Document No.1868/93) as discharged and direct the defendant in the suit to return the mortgage deeds and the title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff and also to direct the defendant to cancel the mortgage deeds and consequently grant injunction restraining the defendant from bringing the suit property for private auction.
4. As per the plaint averments, the respondent/ defendants father, Thiru Vajjiravelu (since deceased) is the brother-in-law of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the plaintiff approached the said Thiru Vajjiravelu for a loan on the property of the plaintiff bearing Door No.10, Rengappa Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 33. In the year 1993, the plaintiffs brother-in-law, Thiru Vajravelu paid a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on various dates as loan to the plaintiff and obtained mortgage deeds from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of the mortgage deeds, his brother-in-law obtained the mortgage deeds in the name of his son Thiru V.Srinivasan who is the defendant in the suit. It is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint that, he borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on various dates and executed three registered mortgage deeds. On the date of the first mortgage, the plaintiff handed over all the title deeds of the suit property to his brother-in-law, Thiru Vajravelu on 13.03.1995, and the plaintiff paid the entire principal money of the mortgage loans of Rs.2,00,000/- to his brother-in-law by way of Bankers Cash order dated 13.03.1995 and thus, he discharged the entire mortgage loans on the suit property.
5. But, his brother-in-law did not return the title deeds of the suit property and due to their close relationship, the plaintiff did not force him to return the document. Thiru Vajravelu passed away in the year 1998 and thereafter, the plaintiff asked the defendant to return the documents, for which, the defendant informed him that the mortgage deeds and the title deeds were misplaced by his father and he would return the same as and when they are traced.
.6. But, to his shock and surprise, the defendant issued a notice demanding the entire principal and interest from 1. 1998 to 312. 2003 amounting to a sum of Rs,2,92,000/-and also claimed with a forged Pro-note for Rs.50,000/- with interest of Rs.30,000/-, in all aggregating to a total of Rs.5,72,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that he never borrowed any loan on the alleged pro-note and he also paid the entire mortgage loan also. Hence, he filed O.S.No.1403 of 2004 for the aforesaid reliefs.
7. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.8878 of 2004 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to permit him to amend the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.8878 of 2004, it is stated by the revision petitioner/plaintiff that in order to purchase the suit property, he approached his brother-in-law, Thiru Vajravelu during June/July 1993 as his brother-in-law was doing money lending business. He borrowed money from his brother-in-law and purchased the suit property and got it registered which was later on renovated by him. After the purchase of the property, he gave the or
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
