The judgment established the validity of the mortgage suit, application of limitation and jurisdiction laws, and interpretation of legal provisions on equitable mortgage and interest rates.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 & Order XXXVII Rule 2 of Original Side Rules R/W Order VII Rule 1 and Order XXXIV Rules 4 & 5 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (a) praying to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Seventy Lakhs only), along with a further interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.24,44,606/-(Rupees twenty four lakhs forty four thousand six hundred and six only) from the date of the plaint till the date of realization of the amount and also the costs of the suit on some day to be named by this Court and in default to sell the property described in the schedule hereunder and apply the proceeds (after defraying there out the expenses of the sale) in and towards the payment of the sum, interest and costs and if such proceeds are not sufficient for the payment in full of such amount, directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the deficiency with interest therein at the rate of 24% per annum until realisation.)

1. In a mortgage suit, the plaintiff seeks a decree for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- from the first, second and third defendants. In default, the sale of the mortgaged property is prayed for.

2. The plaintiff stated that he is a financier by profession. He was introduced to the first defendant and her husband by a mutual acquaintance. In June 2008, the first defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff for a loan in relation to the construction of a party hall-cum-residence in land ad measuring 3000 square-foot. As security for the loan, they offered the property described in the schedule to the plaint by stating that the said property was worth more than Rs.40 lakhs.

3. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant and her husband agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month on delayed payments. On 18 June 2008, the first disbursement of Rs. 90,000 was made. On the same day, the first defendant and her husband created an equitable mortgage over the property described in the schedule to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff by depositing the original title deed of Sale Deed bearing Document No. 2871 of 1996. By way of abundant caution, the plaintiff stated that the first defendant and her husband were also called upon to execute a general power of attorney deed in his favour. Upon such request, the General Power of Attorney Deed dated 19 June 2008 (the General Power of Attorney) was executed in favour of the plaintiff, and registered as Document No. 2380 of 2008. In addition, since the fourth defendant was known both to the plaintiff and the first defendant, an agreement of sale was executed in favour of the fourth defendant on 30 July 2008. This agreement of sale was registered as Document No. 2520 of 2008. However, the plaintiff stated that this document was not acted upon.

4. The plaintiff stated that the second installment of Rs.80,000 was paid by the plaintiff on 19 July 2008 and that a further disbursement of Rs. 2,25,000 was made on 25 August 2008. The plaintiff relied on letters dated 19 July 2008 and 25 August 2008 by which the first defendant acknowledged the debt and promised to repay the same with interest at the rate of 3% per month. In this manner, the plaintiff states that an aggregate sum of Rs.33,96,200 was disbursed to and received by the first defendant and her husband between 18 June 2008 and 3 March 2012.

5. The plaintiff asserted that the first defendant and her husband were very irregular in repaying the loan. After completing construction of the property described in the schedule to the plaint, the first defendant and her husband moved into the property. They tried to convince the plaintiff to cancel the sale agreement in favour of the fourth defendant because they had identified a purchaser and a dispute arose in relation thereto. The first defendant unilaterally cancelled the General Power of Attorney by a cancellation deed dated 6 August 2