JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment of II Additional District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet in A.S.No.46/2017 reversing the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.73/2015 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.

2. The respondents filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.6,08,133/- with future interest on Rs.2 lakhs at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of preliminary decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realisation on the basis of a mortgage, and on default to make payment, the sale of mortgaged property with liberty to proceed against the defendants under Order 34 Rule 6 for the deficiency, if any, and for costs.

3. The case of the respondents is that the first respondent is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the daughters of one R.Venkatesh Rao. The first appellant is the wife of late G.Mohan and other appellants are his children. For a full and valid consideration received from Venkatesh Rao, Mohan and first appellant jointly executed a registered mortgage deed on 23.11.2005 for Rs.2 lakhs. They promised to pay interest at 24% per annum. Mohan paid interest up to December' 2006. Thereafter, Mohan and the 1st appellant did not pay any amount towards the mortgage debt. Venkatesh Rao issued a notice on 27.12.2008 to Mohan and first appellant. They did not send any reply. Mohan died on 19.11.2010 leaving the appellants as his legal representatives to succeed to the suit property. Venkatesh Rao died on 24.07.2011 leaving the respondents as his legal heirs to succeed to the suit amount due on the mortgage deed.

3(i). On 05.11.2011, respondents issued a notice to the appellants to pay the amount due on the mortgage deed and decree amount in O.S.No.10/2009 and O.S.No.13/2009. Appellants paid the amount due on the above suit but did not pay the mortgage loan amount. Respondents 1 to 3 executed a registered madeover deed in favour of 4th respondent in respect of the suit mortgage deed. Fourth respondent issued a notice to the appellants on 11.01.2015 and that was refused. In the said circumstances, the suit was filed for the reliefs aforesaid.

4. It is seen from the written statement of the appellants that they admitted the execution of mortgage deed dated 23.11.2005 for Rs.2 lakhs by G.Mohan and first appellant/Shanthi, in favour of R.Venkatesh Rao and creating an equitable mortgage relating to the suit property. It is the case of the appellants that on the same day of execution of mortgage deed, Venkatesh Rao obtained the signature of the first appellant and Mohan in a few blank promissory notes. Venkatesh Rao was collecting interest from Mohan at 1.5% and Mohan paid interest up to September' 2008. Venkatesh Rao is a financier and was doing money lending business. He instituted two suits in O.S.No.10/2009 and O.S.No.13/2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam against Mohan for recovery of money by using the blank promissory notes given by Mohan at the time of executing the mortgage deed.

4(i). When it was questioned, Venkatesh Rao promised to discharge the liability created on the basis of suit property by equitable mortgage. The decree amount in both the suits were paid by the appellants. Fourth respondent has also filed a suit in O.S.No.257/2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam on the basis of one of the promissory note jointly executed by first appellant and Mohan. First appellant paid the entire amount in all the above suits, but the respondents refused to discharge the liability on the suit property created by mortgage. There is no subsisting liability attached to the mortgage deed. After executing a madeover document in favour of the fourth respondent, the suit filed by all the respondents is not maintainable. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,08,133/- wit