Mr. T. Ravindran, J.

Challenge in the second appeals are made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2010 passed in A.S. No.719 of 2007 & 718 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court (FTC – IV), Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2007 passed in O.S. No.7183 of 1998 on the file of the VI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The second appeals have been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeals:-

"Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim made by the defendant are based upon perverse findings and misdirected against the evidence on record."

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff on the basis of the mortgage.

4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the defendant, for commencing and carrying on business in consumer goods, approached the plaintiff for loan and accordingly, the plaintiff advanced loan to the defendant on various dates both by way of cheque and cash and according to the plaintiff, totally, he had lent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant in the presence of her parents and inasmuch as the defendant, pursuant to the same, did not commence any business nor repaid the amount, the plaintiff demanded security for the repayment of the loan from the defendant and accordingly, the defendant on 15.02.1997 deposited with the plaintiff at Madras the sale deed of her property intending to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds and inasmuch as the defendant did not pay the amount, even thereafter pursuant to the legal notice, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that on account of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant has reposed the confidence on him and it is the plaintiff, who had persuaded the defendant to start a distributorship business in incense sticks and promise to take further steps with reference to the commencement of the said business by locating a premise etc., and it is the further case of the defendant that on 15.02.1997, the plaintiff came to her residence and persuaded her to sign undated blank cheques and also stamp paper and as the defendant had trust and faith on the plaintiff, she had signed the 10 rupees blank stamp paper and also issued blank cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Mowbrays Road Branch and the plaintiff left her house at 8.30a.m. and again at about 11.00 am, the plaintiff came to her residence and attempted to behave with her indecently and thereby, attempted to outrage her modesty and the same was stiffly resisted by the defendant and the defendant had taken the documents kept in the Almirah unlawfully and also encahsed the cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Mowbrays Road Branch, thereafter, making use of the defendant's signature in the blank stamp paper, he had laid the suit falsely against the defendant. Further, it is the case of the defendant that she had suitably responded to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff by giving a detailed reply and thus, according to the defendant, she is entitled to get back the sale deed from the plaintiff and accordingly, made a counter claim with reference to the same in the written statement.

6. As rightly found by the trial court, it could be seen that the defendant has admitted her signature in the mortgage deed dated 15.02.1997 marked as Ex.A1. Now, according to the plaintiff, for the amounts secured by the defendant from the plaintiff as loan on various dates, the defendant had executed the document dated 15.02.1997 entrusting her title deed of the suit property with intent to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. As seen from the evidence of the defendant examined as DW1, she has admitted that the signature found in Ex.A1 is her signature and that apart, she has also admitted that she knew the contents of the d