The lack of a succession certificate does not bar recovery suits, but unregistered documents must be scrutinized for validity.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeal by the defendant, who suffers money decree in O.S.No.458 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore for Rs.9,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a., from 01.05.2014 to 04.09.2014 and thereafter, interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree (20.04.2022) and 6% p.a., interest from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

2. The plaint averments:

The plaintiffs are wife and daughter of late Jaganathan. The defendant on 11.09.2013 borrowed loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Jaganathan and executed a bond captioned as mortgage deed acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10 lakhs with undertaking to repay it within 3 years with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. The title document of the property was also handed over to Jaganathan. The said Jaganathan died on 24.07.2014. Taking advantage of his demise, the defendant and others came to the house of the plaintiffs and demanded back the Bond and title document without repaying the debt. Hence, the first plaintiff gave a police complaint on 25.08.2014. During the enquiry, on her complaint, she came to know that to escape the liability, the defendant had instituted a suit in O.S.No.1794 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, for injunction, claiming that the plaintiffs and men and agent, trying to dispossess the defendant from the peaceful possession of the suit property. The contention of the defendant that she borrowed only Rs.1,20,000/- from Jaganathan and paid interest and part principal to him during his life time. Only a sum of Rs.52,748/- is due and payable, which she is ready to pay, is incorrect.

3. Written statement:

The defendant never borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from Jaganathan on 11.09.2013 or any other date. She had not executed bond on that day. She borrowed only Rs.1,20,000/- from Jagannathan. At that time, signatures in blank stamp papers were obtained from her. Forging documents to extract more money from the defendant, the suit is filed. She had already paid part of the loan amount, she borrowed and only a sum of Rs.52,748/- is due. She is willing to pay that amount. When she and her husband went to pay the balance amount and get back the documents, the plaintiffs threatened them and also gave a false complaint to the police. Immediately, the defendant had given complaint, paper publication and lawyer notice placing the true facts and also instituted suit O.S.No.1794 of 2014 to protect her possession in the property. The suit based on the alleged unregistered mortgage deed by claiming it as Bond without necessary stamp duty is inadmissible and unenforceable. The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit.

4. The Trial Court, framed issues and examined the witnesses. Based on the evidence partly allowed the suit and passed the following decree:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit amount?

2.Whether it is correct to state that the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.52,748/- alone to the plaintiffs?

3.To what other relief?

5. The Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant, contended that, the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiffs in their plaint had given a specific undertaking that they will file the succession certificate in the due course. However, they have not filed the succession certificate. To maintain a suit as legal heir of Jagannathan based on the alleged Bond marked as Ex. A-1. Under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, succession certificate is mandatory. If this document to be treated as mortgage as its caption indicates, then it ought to have been registered. The suit for recovery of money is substantia