JUDGMENT :

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. This appeal is focused as against the Judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009 made in A.S. No. 12 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2005 made in O.S. No. 11 of 2004 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

On 12.02.1992, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and in evidence of the said borrowal, the defendant had executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. Despite repeated demands, the defendant has failed and neglected to pay any amount towards the mortgage debt. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

(i) It is false to state that the defendant had executed the suit mortgage deed dated 12.02.1992, as alleged in the plaint. The Mortgage Deed is a forged document and not supported by consideration. T