JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and Judgment passed by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Appeal Suit No.94 of 2011 dated 05.02.2015. The Respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit for redemption of mortgage and the suit was decreed by directing the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.1,72,550/- with subsequent interest @ 6% on or before 31.08.2008. Upon such payments, the plaintiff has delivered all the documents and to execute necessary documents for discharge. If the plaintiff failed to deposit the abovesaid amount, there will be a final decree for sale. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred Appeal Suit in AS.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court also confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint before the trial court are as follows:-

The plaintiffs is the partnership firm and they are owning the schedule mentioned building suit property. The plaintiffs borrowed money from the defendant under various heads and executed a various simple mortgages and also executed a promissory notes in blank. On 30.08.1995, borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs by executing the mortgage deed. Thereafter, borrowed sum of Rs.3 lakhs and executed mortgage deed dated 04.12.1996 and again borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 12.06.1996 and executed a mortgage deed. Those mortgage deeds were executed by the firm and the partners. In addition to the said amounts, the plaintiff borrowed money to the sum of Rs.34 lakhs by executing promissory notes which are undated and the same were executed in or about in June 1996 and the said promissory notes are barred by limitation. The plaintiffs also executed the letters of hypothecation of title deeds borrowed dated 13.06.1996. By that time, no document of title was deposited. The documents alone were executed in blank format. The documents of title were deposited with the defendant long ago. Even in the year 1995 at the time when the first mortgage was created, the defendants have taken number of blank papers duly signed without dates with ulterior motive. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the amounts borrowed on simple mortgages would be returned in equal monthly instalments as stated in the mortgage deeds. The defendants are not entitled to invoke provisions under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act for the money borrowed under the promissory notes. But they erroneously invoked the provisions under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act advertising the property for sale in public auction. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.849 of 1997 and the same is still pending. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and the same is still pending.

3.1. Before filing of this suit, the plaintiff had paid sum of Rs.835296/-on the various dates between 1995 and 1998 to the defendant. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs through court. Thus the plaintiff had totally paid a sum of Rs.1135296/- which includes the principal and interest and they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,30,507.48/- as on 31.12.2012. The plaintiff is also ready to deposit the above said amount. But the defendants claimed the entire amount which compraised of borrowal through the promissory notes which is barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

The defendant denies all the averments and allegations levelled in the plaint and the plaintiff has to prove the allegation except those are specifically admitted hereunder. The suit is mi