J U D G M E N T

This Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, dated 14.10.2019 made in O.S. No. 51 of 2017.

2. The appellant is the defendant; the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.18,06,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Six Thousand only) along with the interest of principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the date of the suit till the date of the decree on the mortgage executed by the defendant; according to the case of the plaintiff, on 28.03.2014, the defendant availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the plaintiff and executed the mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property agreeing to repay the sum at the rate of Rs.2 per 100 within one year and discharge the mortgage; the said period for repayment is expired on 27.03.2015; since the defendant failed to discharge her liability and redeem the mortgage, the plaintiff has filed the suit for getting preliminary decree for recovery of money along with interest.

3. The defendant resisted the suit by stating that the defendant has repaid the loan and there is no due to be paid to the plaintiff; despite her repayment, the plaintiff refused to discharge the mortgage deed and protracted the time; the plaintiff is engaged in financial business and real estate business; just in order to get the suit property sold to the plaintiff himself, he has filed the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:

(i) Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghiz bgWtjw;F thjp jFjp cilatuh>

(ii) gpujpthjp mlkhd flid brYj;j flikg;gl;ltuh>

(iii) jug;gpdh;fSf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhuk; vd;d>

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and no document was marked.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge, considered the evidence available on record and passed the preliminary decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,06,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Six Thousand only) along with interest of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved over that, the defendant has preferred this Appeal.

8. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 02.03.2022, on the side of the appellant, no argument was advanced. On that day, the appeal was reserved for judgment. Thereafter, a re-open petition was filed and the same was dismissed on 21.03.2022 and thereafter, clarification is sought with regard to the interest and the matter is posted today, the learned counsel for the respondent was present but nothing was argued on behalf of the appellant about the interest.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant / defendant had executed the registered mortgage deed and she can deny her liability. The very production of the mortgage deed itself would prove the transaction in accordance with Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Despite it is contended by the appellant/defendant that she made repayment towards loan, no endorsement is made on the mortgage deed to substantiate the same. Excepting her own self-assertion and DW2 is said to have witnessed her alleged payment to the plaintiff, no documentary evidence is produced by the appellant. The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the preliminary decree and it does not require any interference.

10. Points for consideration:

"Whether the judgment of the trial Court in passing the preliminary decree as prayed, is fair and proper?"

11. The execution of the mortgage deed which has been marked as Ex.A1 is not denied. Even prior to the filing of the suit, the legal notice was sent by the respond