The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered mortgage deed is inadmissible as evidence for establishing any right under the mortgage and that the limitation for recovery of the loan is governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act.

1. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Muniappan, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.69/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- together with an interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation based on an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed dated 19.06.1998. The suit was decreed by the trial court directing the appellant herein/defendant to pay the said amount claimed in the plaint to the plaintiff along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation as against the claim of interest @ 18% per annum. The appellant herein/defendant was also directed by the trial court to pay the cost of litigation to the respondent herein/plaintiff. Challenging the said decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.69 of 2003, an appeal was filed by the appellant herein/defendant in A.S.No.16 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, Salem. The learned Principal District Judge, Salem dismissed the appeal without cost by his judgment and decree dated 05.07.2006 confirming the decree passed by the trial court. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are challenged in the present second appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff on the basis of the plaint averments, which are in brief, as follows:

On 19.06.1998, the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-and executed an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed. On the date of mortgage itself, possession of the property mortgaged was handed over to the respondent herein/plaintiff on the understanding that the said document would be registered within a month and the appellant herein/defendant would bear the expenses of additional stamp duty and registration charges. However, on 04.07.1998, the appellant herein/defendant trespassed into the property, possession of which had been handed over to the respondent herein/plaintiff as per the mortgage deed and thereafter the appellant/defendant refused to register the said document and did not allow the respondent herein/plaintiff from enjoying the properties, regarding which the said mortgage deed was executed. When the respondent/plaintiff requested for the return of Rs.1,45,000/- borrowed by the appellant/defendant, he was evading on one pretext or another. Even the attempt made through panchayatdars to make the appellant/defendant comply with the demand of the respondent/plaintiff proved futile and the appellant/defendant was not at all willing to return the amount borrowed by him even though he agreed to return the same after a period of five years along with interest. Hence the respondent/plaintiff was forced to issue a lawyer's notice on 07.06.2003 demanding repayment of the above said amount with interest. But the appellant/defendant, who received the said notice, failed to either comply with the demand made therein or to send a reply. On the other hand, he was making hectic efforts to alienate and encumber the properties. As such, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the recovery of the above said sum of Rs.1,45,000/- from the appellant herein/defendant with an interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and also for cost.

3. The appellant herein/defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement, which contains the following averments, besides general denial of the plaint averments.

The appellant/defendant did not borrow Rs.1,45,000/- for his family expenses and execute an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed on 19.06.1998 as claimed by the plaintiff. The alleged usufructuary mortgage deed was not at all executed by the appellant/defendant. The left thumb impression and the signature found in the alleged document dated 19.06.1998 are not that of the appellant herein/defendant