1. C.S.No.339 of 1999 is a suit filed by an individual for redemption of a simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 created by a partnership firm by name M/s.Ramu & Co., which is the third defendant in the suit, in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., which is the first defendant in the suit and for various other reliefs.

2. C.S.No.995 of 1999 is a suit filed by the mortgagor, which is a partnership firm by name M/s.Ramu & Co., seeking a declaration that there was no concluded contract of sale between the mortgagee viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., which is the second defendant in the suit and the auction purchaser, who is the first defendant in the suit.

3. C.S.No.551 of 2001 is a suit filed by the partnership firm (mortgagor) for redemption of simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 created by the plaintiff firm in favour of the first defendant viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., and for other reliefs.

4. Tr.C.S.No.2 of 2003 and Tr.C.S.No.3 of 2003 are suits filed by the erstwhile partners of the mortgagor firm, for declaration that the mortgage created by the partnership firm viz., Ramu & Co., in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., is null and void and for a consequential declaration that the auction sale conducted by the mortgagee on 13.12.1999 also is null and void.

5. In effect, there are actually two suits for redemption of mortgage, one filed by an individual who ceased to be a partner of the mortgagor firm and another filed by the mortgagor firm itself. There is one suit by the mortgagor firm for declaring the auction sale already held, to be null and void. The other two suits are by the erstwhile partners of the firm (mortgagor), seeking a declaration that the very creation of the mortgage by the firm, was null and void.

6. Since two suits are by the borrower partnership firm and the other 3 suits are by the erstwhile partners of the firm, seeking various reliefs that actually revolve around the creation of a mortgage and the sale of the mortgaged property by the mortgagee, all the 5 suits were grouped together for joint trial, one set of issues was framed in common for all the 5 suits, evidence was let in common and hence, all the 5 suits are disposed of together by a common judgment.

7. The first three suits C.S.Nos.339 & 995 of 1999 and 551 of 2001 fall under one category and the other two suits Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 fall under a different category. However, I shall extract the pleadings and the reliefs sought in each of the five suits separately, before plunging into the discussion in common. Pleadings in C.S.No.339 of 1999:

8. The averments contained in the plaint in C.S.No.339 of 1999 in brief, are as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff and defendants 4 to 8 in C.S.No.339 of 1999 were running a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s.Ramu & Co., having Registered Office at No.91, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18. The partnership firm is arrayed as the third defendant in the suit. The partnership firm borrowed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the first defendant viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., and the first defendant granted the loan. On 31.7.1995, the fourth defendant, acting as the Power Agent on behalf of the third defendant firm (borrower) executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the first defendant, mortgaging the property of an extent of about 39 grounds at Door No.91, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18.

(b) The partnership firm also borrowed a further amount of Rs.4,75,00,000/- from the first defendant. A loan agreement to the said effect was executed by the fourth defendant on 01.8.1995.

(c) The loan amounts were repayable with interest at 24% p.a., within a period of one year. But, the amount was not repaid.

(d) On 12.7.1997, the first defendant issued a lawyer's notice, demanding a sum of Rs.6,34,46,170/-, allegedly due both on the simple mortgage loan and under the second loan agreement.

(e) The notice also indicated that if the borrowers failed to repay the m