JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 06.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2017, by the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.189 of 2012 by the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, are modified.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court for recovery of money, wherein the appellants have been shown as defendants.

3. In the plaint it is averred that the plaint schedule property belonged to the defendants. The defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant is a retired Teacher. The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.05.2008 to meet out their family expenditure and other expenditures and executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the plaint schedule property on the same day and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum ie., a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, as on 27.10.2012, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,59,000/- inclusive of principal and interest. Though the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% in default, he has claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendants did not pay the interest from the date of mortgage nor the principal as agreed and was evasive when the plaintiff demanded money. In the meantime, the first defendant sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the plaintiff encashed the same. The interest of Rs.3,000/- has been deducted from the abovesaid amount and the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,56,000/-. As the defendants have not repaid the amount, the suit has been filed for the recovery of money on the mortgage.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, the defendant had refuted the averments made in the plaint that the defendants received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the family expenses and to execute a mortgage deed. The defendants further stated that they received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only from the plaintiff. Since the defendants demanded the execution of mortgage deed for Rs.3,00,000/- for lending Rs. 1,50,000/-, the defendants had to execute the deed for Rs.3,00,000/-. The first defendant has regularly paid the monthly interest of Rs.3,000/- per month to the plaintiff in person till April, 2011 and the first defendant sent the interest of Rs.3,000/- for the month of May, 2011 through Demand Draft along with a letter dated 26.05.2011 and the plaintiff received the letter on 01.06.2011. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, one Ganesan was examined as P.W.2 and one Thillaipazham was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one Manimuthusamuel was examined as D.W.1 and one Sivaperumal was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked and on the side of the witness, Ex.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the appellant / plaintiff. The trial Court directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,56,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization for the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default the schedule property be proceeded with to recover the loan amount and granted time for payment for three months.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants as appellants, had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.20 of 2017. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed the appeal in part insofar as the payment o