The court affirmed that the maximum interest for secured loans is 9% per annum under Tamil Nadu law, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of excessive interest charges.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of redemption of mortgage and to take account of the amount due to the 1^st defendant for actual principal, interest, costs and upon payment of the same by the plaintiffs, the 1^st defendant may be directed to deliver the plaintiffs the mortgage instruments and all the documents in his possession or power relating to the property and to execute and register an acknowledgement in writing to the effect that the interest created by the mortgage has been extinguished and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the schedule mentioned property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiffs are running a Jewellery Shop in the name and style of M/s Radha Gold Jewellers and prior to 30.09.2016, the plaintiffs had borrowed a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs on various dates from the 1^st defendant, for that, he charged exorbitant interest at the rate of 36% per annum and he claimed a sum of Rs.56 Lakhs and insisted the plaintiffs to pay the said amount or to execute mortgage in respect of the property. The 1^st defendant assured to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, in addition to the earlier loan amount and insisted the plaintiffs to execute a mortgage deed. The 1^st defendant never paid a sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/-, as per mortgage deed and every month, the 1^st defendant, collected a sum of Rs.53,000/- towards interest after the execution of mortgage deed, till the month of April, 2022. The 1^st defendant insisted the plaintiffs to sell mortgaged property instead of paying interest, therefore, the 1^st defendant issued notice dated 23.04.2022 to the plaintiffs demanding to repay the amount of Rs.1,06,00,000/- and the same was suitably replied on 14.05.2022. In the said notice, the 1^st defendant failed to mention about the outstanding amount as on date of said legal notice and he simply stated to repay Rs.1,06,45,000/- and Rs.45,000/- towards documentation charges at the rate of 18% interest.

(ii) After receipt of reply notice, the 1^st defendant, instructed the 2^nd defendant to auction the immovable property and the 2^nd defendant also sent a letter dated 17.05.2022 to the plaintiffs and called upon the plaintiffs to pay the entire dues within a week. The 1^st defendant having received the entire interest as of April, 2022, had taken steps to auction the property would definitely infringe legal right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are ready to repay the agreed principal amount and the amount mentioned in the mortgage deed is not the actual principal amount and the 1^st defendant had intentionally made use of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and got mortgage deed registered in his favour. An ordinary prudent man would not wait for six years for payment of interest. As per conditions stipulated in the mortgage deed, if the plaintiffs failed to pay the interest for three consecutive months, he can take legal action, but the 1^st defendant had not taken any steps and only issued notice in the year 2022, even in the said legal notice, he does not whisper about the outstanding amount, therefore, the 1^st defendant after receipt of interest till the April, 2022, not entitled to receive the amount, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant are as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable and the averments made in the plaint are denied as false and the plaintiffs have to prove the allegations levelled in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by the 1^st defendant. The averments made in the plaint with regar