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. The defendant in fact approached the plaintiff to lend a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff coerced the defendant to put signature and thumb marks behind a stamp paper in which no recitals were incorporated. The plaintiff has also assured that he would retain the blank stamp papers as a security for the principal of Rs. 25,000/- and return the same as soon as the said debt is discharged. The plaintiff falsely created the mortgage deed and got the same registered. In fact, the plaintiff failed to pay the assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- also. The plaintiff has also got an empty promissory note in his favour. Coming to know of the fraudulent creation of the suit mortgage deed, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return the same duly discharged. However, the plaintiff threatened that he would create a sale agreement or any other agreement of his choice and coerced the defendant, from not preferring a police complaint. The defendant is not liable to pay any interest as claimed in the plaint. Hence, the suit is liable for dismissal.

5. From the above averments, the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 and PW2 were examined and two exhibits were marked as Ex. A1 and Ex. A2. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW1 and marked six documents as Ex. B1 to Ex. B6

6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, by judgment and decree dated 08.11.2005, came to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,03,910/-, along with interest. In the appeal preferred by the defendant in A.S. No. 12 of 2008, the learned District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and as such, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

7. Feeling aggrieved over the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court with the present Second Appeal. When the second appeal is taken up for admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law.

"1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that consideration has not passed contrary to the terms contained in the registered Mortgage deed?

2. Whether it is proper on the part of the lower Appellate Court to ignore the admission of the respondent in Ex. A2 reply notice with regard to the passing of consideration?"

8. Heard Mr. P. Seshadri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. S.V. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 12.02.1992, the defendant borrowed a sum