The court emphasized the importance of proper pleadings and the necessity of impleading the appropriate parties in a suit, as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).

Headnote:
Mortgage - Recovery of Money - O.S. No. 56 of 2013 - C.P.C. - [Order 34 Rule 1, Order 34 Rule 2, Order 34 Rule 4] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 34 Rule 1, Order 34 Rule 2, and Order 34 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in relation to the grant of a preliminary decree on a simple mortgage deed. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the suit due to defective pleadings and the absence of the company as a defendant.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff sought recovery of money allegedly borrowed by Late V. Eshwara Prasad, but the trial Court granted a preliminary decree on a simple mortgage deed. Defendant denied the borrowing and execution of the mortgage deed.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court erred in granting relief based on defective pleadings and absence of the company as a defendant. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable against the defendant.
Issues: Validity of the plaintiff's claim, liability of the defendant, and maintainability of the suit against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit was dismissed due to defective pleadings and absence of the company as a defendant, rendering it not maintainable against the defendant.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was allowed, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to proceed against M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited if entitled to do so under the law.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 2013 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (PoA) Cases-cum-Additional District, at Nalgonda. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 56 of 2013 praying to grant decree for recovery of money of Rs. 1,21,52,000/- which includes principal amount and interest, basing on simple mortgage deed by creating charge on immovable properties and future interest.

4. Defendant is the wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, who was the Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, Ramannapet.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that Late V. Eshwara Prasad, as Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, obtained various loans on various dates totalling to an amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- and executed the Notarized Mortgage Deed on 17.04.2009 on Document No. 132/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.35 cents, Document No. 184/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.27 cents, Document No. 135/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.275 cents, Document No. 136/200 to an extent of Acs. 2.375 cents, Document No. 138/200 to an extent of Acs. 2.65 cents, Document No. 138/100 to an extent of Ac.1.95 cents, Document No. 139/2000 to an extent of Ac. 1.925 cents, Document No. 143/200 to an extent of Ac. 0.925 cents, total extent of Acs. 19.725 cents in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff alleged that in the mortgage deed, Late V. Eshwara Prasad admitted of borrowing Rs. 62,00,000/- as loan amount from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, in spite of demand made for repayment of loan amount along with interest, Late V. Eshwara Prasad did not repay the amount. After death of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, plaintiff approached the defendant number of times requesting to either return the said amount along with interest or to register the properties covered by the mortgage deed. Since defendant has not honoured the commitments and did not repay the amount, plaintiff was compelled to institute O.S. No. 56 of 2013.

7. In the written statement, defendant totally denied the contention of the plaintiff about the borrowing of amount and executing the Notarized Mortgage Deed.

8. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant who is the wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad?

(2) Whether the defendant’s late husband V. Eshwara Prasad has executed the notarized mortgage deed dated 17.04.2009 in favour of the plaintiff which is also signed by the defendant as a witness in which the defendant’s late husband V. Eshwara Prasad has admitted as he obtained various loan amounts from the plaintiff on various dates totalling to an amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum from 17.04.2009?

(3) Whether the defendant also has signed on the undertakings along with her late husband V. Eshwara Prasad?

(4) To what relief?

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked.

10. The trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant, who is wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, holding that defendant admitted that her late husband worked as Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited and, therefore, she is liable to pay the suit amount with simple interest. Having held so, the trial Court ordered preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed.

11. In other words, though the suit was instituted for recovery of money alleged to have been borrowed by Late V. Eshwara Prasad, the trial Court granted relief of preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed by mentioning the period of redemption as three months and further held that in case defendant failed to pay the suit amount, the plaintiff was at liberty to follow due process of law.

12. In this appeal, the preliminary contention of the defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document