The court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the interest rate contingent upon the appellant's timely payment, highlighting adherence to contract terms and judicial discretion in mortgage cases.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S. No.163 of 2018, is the appellant in the present appeal.

II. PLEADINGS:

2 (1). Plaint in brief:

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.06.2014 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest on 24% per annum. The defendant mortgaged the suit property to the plaintiff on 18.06.2014, by executing a mortgage deed as security for the debt, agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum. The defendant did not pay any amount either towards interest or principal. The defendant gave evasive replies whenever the plaintiff demanded the payment of the amount due and payable by the defendant. Hence, suit for recovery of sum of Rs.10,34,932/- on the mortgage title.

2(2). Written Statement filed by the defendant in brief:

It is true that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, it is incorrect to state that the defendant did not pay any interest or principal. The defendant has been paying interest at Rs.15,000/- periodically upto May, 2015 and in all, the defendant has paid Rs.1,17,000/-. Only because of trust and confidence in the plaintiff, the defendant did not insist upon an endorsement regarding the said payments. Plaintiff is a professional money lender who is in the habit of obtaining signatures in blank papers to coerce borrowers. The defendant is a victim of one such transaction. The claim for interest is excessive and the suit amount is also calculated erroneously, without deducting interest paid by the defendants. 2(3) Issues:

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount due under mortgage deed?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to decree as prayed for?

iii. To what relief the parties entitled?

2(4). Trial:

On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A9 documents were marked and on the side of the defendant, defendant's brother Tr.Udhaya Shankar, was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were filed.

2(5). Decision of the Trial Court:-

The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and granted a decree as prayed, with a direction to the defendant to pay interest at 24% per annum from the date of plaint, till the date of decree and thereafter, at

6% till the date of realization on the principal borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, granting two months time to the defendant.

3. The present APPEAL:-

I have heard Mr.A.M.Ilango, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:-

The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the Trial Court erred in not accepting the defence regarding payment of interest at Rs.15,000/- per month. He would further state that the Trial Court erred in granting interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of plaint, till date of decree and he would further state that when the defendant had expressed his readiness to pay the mortgage money, if the interest of Rs.1,17,000/- paid was deducted, has not even been taken note of by the Trial Court. He would further state that the suit was filed only in the year 2018 and if really, the defendant had committed default from 2014, then the plaintiff would not have waited for such a long period to initiate proceedings for recovery of money. He would therefore state that the evidence of D.W.1, regarding payment of interest was more probable which has not been judiciously considered by the Trial Court. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the appeal being allowed.

5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent:-

Per con