1. The defendant in OS.No.907 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore is the appellant. The suit was filed for a preliminary decree based on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds evidenced by a memorandum of deposit dated 31.05.2001 executed by the defendant.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 10.06.2000, a sum of Rs.85,000/- on 12.06.2000 and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 31.05.2001 as security for the above said borrowings, the defendant had executed promissory notes on the respective dates. After the borrowing on 31.05.2001 the defendant had deposited the original documents of title namely the sale deed dated 12.06.2000 with the plaintiff at Coimbatore with an intention to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Such deposit is also evidenced by a Memorandum dated 31.05.2001. Since, the defendant had not repaid the loan, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.6,72,666.66/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the borrowals are not true. The defendant had denied the entire claim of the plaintiff, as regards the borrowing. He would also contend that he had never visited the Coimbatore Office of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of his depositing the sale deed dated 12.06.2000 with the defendant at its Coimbatore Office on 31.05.2001. Hence, according to him, there was no equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deed.

4. The defendant would further contend that during May 2001, he had approached the plaintiff for loan, for expansion of his cultivation of curry leaves, and at that time, they had imposed various conditions and stated that they would lend him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, if the conditions are complied with. When the defendant was hesitant to comply with the said conditions, the Proprietor of the plaintiff and his father-in-law persuaded him to agree with the said conditions and the defendant and his wife were made to agree to those conditions for borrowing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. It is also further contended that an agreement of sale was also created on 25.05.2001. Pursuant to the same, using the power of attorney obtained from the defendant, the plaintiff got sale deed registered on 17.10.2002. It is also claimed that when he had taken the loan of a small amount, his signatures were obtained in several blank papers, blank promissory notes and stamp papers, with the help of which the suit documents have been created. It is also claimed that it is the practice of the plaintiff to charge exorbitant interest and criminal proceedings have also been launched at the instance of his wife against the wife of the plaintiff's Proprietor namely Badrammal. On the above contentions, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues :

1. Whether the defendant is liable to pay any money as per the suit promissory notes?

2. Whether the defendant has discharged the suit claim?

3. To what relief is plaintiff entitled to?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On the side of the defendant, he was examined as DW1 and examined one Duraisamy as DW2 and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked.

8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Trial Court, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the borrowing as well as deposit of title deeds have been proved and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for in the suit. Aggrieved the defendant has come forward with this appeal.

9. Heard Mr. J. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

10. Mr. J. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the mortgage by deposit of title deeds has not been established. According