The remedy under Section 36 of the Registration Act is not an equally efficacious relief, and the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 made in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Karur confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 made in O.S.No.698 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.)

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 made in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Karur confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 made in O.S.No.698 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant before the Court below.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments made in the plaint, are as follows: The plaintiff submits that he has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, dated 22.11.1995. After that, he mortgage the said property with the defendant by virtue of simple mortgage deed, dated 12.03.2007 in document No.447/2007. Based upon the mortgage, he borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) from the defendant. It is the submission of the plaintiff that he has duly repaid the principal and interest. After receipt of the principal and interest, the defendant has executed a stamp receipt on 09.09.2008 and has also returned the original registered simple mortgage deed, dated 12.03.2007 to the plaintiff. Though the original mortgage deed and the stamp receipt have been marked before the Court below, after signing of the stamp receipt, when the plaintiff has requested the defendant to register the same, he refused to do so. It is also the submission of the plaintiff that on 24.09.2008 when he lastly demanded the defendant to come to the Sub Register Office to register the said receipt, the defendant refused to come to the Registrar Office. Therefore, he came forward with the suit for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to register the discharge receipt, dated 09.09.2008.

5. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows: The defendant stoutly disputed the very receipt of the principal and interest of the mortgage amount. According to the defendant, he believed the words of the plaintiff and went to the plaintiff premises where the plaintiff has insisted the defendant to hand over the original deed and signed in the receipt for the payment of the principal and interest. Hence, believing the words of the plaintiff, he bonafidely handed over the document and signed in the receipt. It is the further submission of the defendant that after receipt of the original mortgage deed and also the original receipt, the plaintiff did not pay the principal amount and interest and has intimidated him to come to the Registrar Office. Suspecting the plaintiff's conduct, the defendant refused to do so, and also requested the plaintiff to return the original mortgage deed and signed receipts. But, the plaintiff refused to do so, and started threatening the defendant. Hence, he preferred a complaint before the Karur Police Station. He would further submit that the very framing of the suit is defective and that the plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fee. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. In his additional written statement, the defendant has also pleaded that the very suit is liable to be dismissed, in view of Sections 36 and 37 of the Registration Act.

7. Before the Court below, the plaintiff has examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to PW.3, and marked four documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4.The defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and marked six documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6.

8. After hearing both sides and based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit with the finding that the very suit is not m