JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 made in O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge (PCR)(FAC), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The sixth defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for passing preliminary mortgage decree declaring the amount due under the suit mortgage with interest and for directing the defendants to pay the said amount to the plaintiffs on or before the date to be fixed by the Court and in default to pass final decree for the sale of the suit property.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the deceased Muthuramalinga Rathinavelu Chettiar and his son M.Natarajan (4th defendant) approached the plaintiffs and borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 18.04.2005. They executed Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 18.04.2005 undertaking to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. The promissory note was executed by the deceased Muthuramalinga Rathinavelu Chettiar and the fourth defendant M.Natarajan. It was attested by the other two sons, namely, defendants 2 and 3. Two days later, Muthuramalinga Rathinavelu Chettiar came to the plaintiffs' house and deposited the title document (Ex.A.3 dated 26.07.1970) with an intention to create an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. He also executed Ex.A.2 memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 20.04.2005. Ex.A.2 was also attested by defendants 2 and 4.

4. Muthuramalinga Rathinavelu Chettiar subsequently passed away. His legal heirs instead of clearing the mortgage liability, sold the property in favour of the appellant herein on 07.11.2008 vide Ex.A.20 for a sum of Rs.9,25,000/-. The appellant had retained a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and had paid the balance sale consideration. The retained amount was to be paid to the vendors, after the original title document said to have been missing is found out and handed over. The plaintiffs also stated that the deceased mortgagor had availed loans from other persons and one of the creditors, namely, Chitraleka filed I.P.No.4 of 2005. During the pendency of the insolvency petition, the sale in favour of the appellant took place. The insolvency petition was withdrawn on 11.11.2008 as not pressed. Though the plaintiffs had earlier got themselves impleaded in I.P.No.4 of 2005, their endeavour to revive the I.P. was not successful. Left with no other option, they filed O.S.No.51 of 2009 for enforcing the suit mortgage.

5. The appellant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. His stand was that he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. His vendors had told him that the parent documents were missing and that they could not be found out. The appellant believed their words and entered into the transaction. The appellant would allege collusion between his vendors and the plaintiffs. The vendors who were shown as defendants 1 to 4 also filed written statement. They denied the suit transaction in its entirety.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the Court below framed the necessary issues. The first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14. After a consideration of the evidence on record, the Court below passed preliminary decree and the defendants were directed to pay the plaintiffs the suit claim of Rs.11,17,675/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the purchaser /D6 filed this first appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the collusion between the plaintiffs and the appellant's vendors is apparent. The borrowal had taken place on 18.04.2005. The plaintiffs had lent money on the strength of Ex.A.1 promissory note. It is improbable that the deceased borrower, namely, Muthuramalinga Rathinavelu Chettiar could have voluntarily come two days later on 20.04.2005 and deposited the original sale deed dated 26.07