The acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period sustains the suit for recovery against the estate of the borrower.

J U D G M E N T

This instant suit has been filed for a preliminary decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,21,25,000/- from the defendant and, in default, for sale of the suit property mortgaged as security for the debt. The original defendant having died during the pendency of the suit, her legal heirs have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 8.

2) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff and, as security, entered into a loan agreement on 12.04.2011 and deposited the title deeds of the suit property with the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. However, she failed to repay either the principal or the interest. Consequently, the plaintiff caused a legal notice to be issued to the defendant on 16.12.2017. The defendant, by reply dated 27.12.2017, agreed to repay the loan within 30 days and further agreed to sell the suit property in the event of default. Despite such undertaking, the defendant neither repaid the loan amount nor executed the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the said sum and, in default, for sale of the suit property.

3) The defence of the defendants is that the averments in the plaint are false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof. They contend that the suit is barred by limitation since the transaction took place in 2011 and the suit was filed only in 2021. It is further contended that the defendant had in fact borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.08.2006 from the plaintiff, and, on the plaintiff’s instigation, entered into a mortgage deed with one A. Navneeth, a close relative of the plaintiff. The defendant repaid the said amount exceeding to Rs.15,00,000/-, for which a receipt was issued by the said Navneeth. The defendants deny the loan agreement and reply notice, alleging that the defendant’s signatures on blank papers were misused by the plaintiff. On these grounds, the defendants seek dismissal of the suit as time-barred.

4) Based on the pleadings and materials on record, the following issues arise for determination:

1.Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff and created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds as security for the said loan?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest as prayed for?

3.To what other reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

5) On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs. P1 to P8. Although the original defendant filed a written statement, after her demise the legal heirs, despite due service of notice, neither appeared to contest the matter nor produced any evidence in support of their defence.

6) Heard Mr. S. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7) Mr. Ramesh Kumar submits that the plaintiff is engaged in finance business at Chintadripet and that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property situated at Maduravoyal Village measuring about Acres 3.75 cents, which she acquired under a settlement deed dated 15.04.2005 vide document No. 2128 of 2005 (Ex.P1). He submits that the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance to discharge her earlier loans including the mortgage debt under document No. 4148 of 2006 dated

03.08.2006 (Ex.P2) in favour of A. Navaneeth, which was redeemed on payment as evidenced by Ex.P3.

8) He contends that to secure the fresh loan of Rs.50,00,000/-, the defendant executed a lett