The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of documents required by law to be attested in accordance with the legal provisions, as highlighted in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2021 made in A.S.No.12 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 made in O.S.No.28 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.)

1. The plaintiff has filed the present second appeal challenging the correctness of the finding given by both the Courts below in disallowing a portion of his claim.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

The first defendant is the mother of the second defendant. The defendants are the family friend of the plaintiff. On 04.5.2009 the first defendant''s husband viz., M.Gajendran had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 24% per annum agreeing to repay the same on demand by offering his vacant land measuring 1564sq.ft., in T.S.No.477/1 under UDR Natham Survey No.541/10 in 87-Vadamabakkam Village, Vellore District, and had also executed registered equitable mortgage deed dated 04.5.2009 in Document bearing No.4749 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Joint-II Arakkonam Circle, Vellore District. The interest has been paid by the said Gajendran regularly. After the demise of the said Gajendran i.e.,from 20.06.2009, his wife, the first defendant, has paid the interest from 04.05.2009 to 04.07.2011 and at that time, defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff for the loan amount and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 04.07.2011 by offering the very same vacant land already offered by her husband and had executed a registered equitable mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff in Document bearing No.5025 of 2011. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay interest. The plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 14.06.2017 to the defendants. Even after receipt of the notice, the defendants have not paid either the principal amount or the interest, and hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2018 seeking a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum on Rs.9,92,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization and a further direction to the defendants to deposit the said amount within a period of six months.

4. The defendants have filed the written statement contending that the first defendant''s husband viz., Gajendran executed a mortgage deed No.4749/2009 on 04.05.2009, when he was alive, in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and her husband paid the interest at 3% i.e.,Rs.6,000/- for the said amount every month without fail. The first defendant''s husband died on 20.06.2009 and after his demise, the plaintiff forced and threatened the first defendant. As the plaintiff mounted pressure on her to execute the fresh mortgage, she had executed a fresh mortgage deed No.5025/2011 on 04.07.2011 along with her minor son, the second defendant, as if she received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by mortgaging the suit property. But the first defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and only her husband mortgaged the suit schedule property and availed a loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 04.05.2009 for urgent family needs from the plaintiff and till his death, he paid the interest amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the plaintiff. Even after demise of her husband, the first defendant paid the said interest regularly till the receipt of notice dated 14.06.2017 from the plaintiff. It is utter false to state that the defendants have to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. It is only the husband of the first defendant, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a mortgage deed on 04.05.2009 as stated above and in substitute of the earlier mortgage deed No.4749 of 2009, the plaintiff had obta