Sadasivam, J.-Appellants filed the suit in the lower Court to recover Rs. 33,440 on three registered security bonds, Exhibits A-1 dated 1st November, 1957, Exhibit A-2 dated 4th September, 1948 and Exhibit A-3 dated 6th April, 1951, executed by the first defendant in their favour for Rs. 5,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs.13,000 respectively, hypothecating the properties covered by the plaint A, B and C Schedules respectively. The plaintiffs released some of the items of the hypotheca and sued to recover the amounts due to them from the remaining items alone, which are described in the plaint D Schedule. The security bonds were intended to cover future advances upto the limit mentioned in each and such advances were evidenced by promissory notes executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, found that the security bonds, Exhibits A-1 to A-3 are true, that the promissory notes Exhibits A-4 and A~8 are fully supported by consideration that the arrangement pleaded by the first defendant in paragraph 4 of his written statement that by virtue of the plaintiffs being in possession of the properties covered by the nominal sale deed Exhibit A-32, dated 17th December, 1951 in favour of P.W. 2, Manickam Chettiar, the amounts due to the plaintiffs in respect of their dealings with him have been discharged, is not true, that the first defendant and his son the second defendant are not entitled to the benefit of Madras Act IV of 1938 and that in the result the appellants are entitled to the amount claimed by them; he however granted a mortgage decree only to the extent of Rs. 15,000 over items 1 and 2 of the plaint D Schedule in respect of the security bonds Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and a mortgage decree for Rs. 1,200 with interest over items 4 to 6 of the plaint D Schedule in respect of the security bond Exhibit A-3 on the ground that the security bonds could be enforced only upto the limit of the amounts mentioned therein and not in respect of the interest on the loans advanced; and that item 3 of the plaint D Schedule now owned by the third defendant cannot be proceeded against as it was released by an agreement between the plaintiffs and P.W. 2, Manickam Chettiar, the vendee under Exhibit A-32. Defendants 4 and 5 are only subsequent alienees. There is no appeal by any of the defendants.

The only two points urged by the learned Advocate for the appellants (plaintiffs) are that they are entitled to a mortgage decree in respect of the entire amounts claimed by them as the amounts claimed by them over and above the amounts secured under the documents Exhibits A-1 and A-2 represent only interest and that as they have not released the house, item 3 of the plaint D schedule, they are entitled to proceed against that item also.

The registered security bonds Exhibits A-1 to A-3 have been executed by the first defendant to secure future advances upto the limit of the amounts mentioned therein and the security bonds could be enforced only for advances upto the maximum limit mentioned in the bonds. But the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge has failed to note that though the plaintiff’s are entitled to claim larger amounts, they have confined their claims to the principal amounts mentioned in Exhibit A-1 and A-2, and the interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. The same question does not arise in respect of the third registered security bond, Exhibit A-3 as the plaintiffs have confined their claim to a sum of Rs. 1,200 in respect of the claim under that document. The maximum limit of future advances secured under the documents, Exhibits A-1 and A-2, could refer only to the principal amounts, and not to subsequent interest. It is meaningless to contend that if a person advances moneys upto the limit mentioned in the mortgage deed intended to secure future advances, he cannot claim a charge in respect of the interest on the ground that by so doing he would be exceeding th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document