Promissory notes were deemed security for othi transactions, and the plaintiff's claims were impacted by contract modifications, barring separate recovery under the original terms.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed by defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.

2. The plaintiff is the respondent herein and the defendants are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The suit is filed for recovery of money in O.S.No.34 of 2009, and the suit was allowed as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants/appellants herein have filed the present appeal suit.

4. The brief facts as stated by the plaintiff is that the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for some family expenses on 13.09.2006 and executed registered mortgage deed, dated 13.09.2006, in respect of their land in Survey No.267/1 admeasuring 4 acres 22 cents, situated at Kuchanoor Village. On the same date i.e. 13.09.2006 again Rs.4,40,000/- was given as secured loan by executing promissory note. On the next date i.e. on 14.09.2006 again Rs.4,40,000/- was given as secured loan by executing promissory note. And the accepted rate of interest is Rs.1/- for Rs.100/- rupees per month. The above said amount covered under the promissory note was not repaid and the interest was also not paid. Hence, the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.11,95,623.20/- for the two promissory notes with agreed rate of interest was filed by the plaintiff.

5. The 1^st defendant represented by the Power Agent, Abdul Hameed, had filed written statement wherein it is stated that she is aged about 68 years and having health issues. The 2^nd defendant is the 1^st son of the 1^st defendant. Apart from the admitted facts and the other contents stated in the plaint are vehemently denied as false. The plaintiff had filed as if the 1^st defendant had obtained loan from the plaintiff and the same is false. The 1^st defendant is married to one Abdul Rahman who are blessed with four daughters, namely Sakkeena Parveen, Fathima Parveen, Sagitha Jawahar and Mathina Munawar and two sons namely, Mohammed Feroze Khan Noon and Beer Mohammed Jeilani. After the demise of the 1^st defendant’s husband, the 1^st defendant and their 6 children are the legal heirs to the deceased Abdul Rahman. All the legal heirs are entitled to share in the suit property as per Muslim Law. The 2^nd defendant had transferred his share to his wife and two minor children. The plaintiff had filed a false case against the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant had not borrowed any money for interest as alleged by the plaintiff, the claim in the suit is false, hence, the 1^st defendant is not liable to pay any money to the plaintiff. The property shown in the plaint is an agricultural land which was purchased by the deceased husband from his own income, thereafter was in possession and enjoyment by paying kist etc. After his demise, the 1^st defendant and the other legal heirs are depended on the income derived through the agriculture activities in the said land. The above property is valued as Rs.15,00,000/-. The 2^nd defendant was doing some business, but had incurred loss and the same is known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also well aware that the property belongs to all legal heirs and also the plaintiff is aware that the 2^nd defendant is not having right over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff cannot attach the suit property. The plainti