Navalpur Balamurugan Benefit ... vs Mr.R.Munirathnam Naidu
2021 Latest Caselaw 12818 Mad

                                                       S.A.No.760 of 2007
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                           DATED: 30.06.2021

                                 CORAM:

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                          S.A.No.760 of 2007
                         and M.P.No.1 of 2007

Navalpur Balamurugan Benefit Fund Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager Mr.M.Selvaraj
No.155, M.B.T.Road, Navalpur,
Ranipet, Vellore District.                             ...Appellant

                                   vs.

Mr.R.Munirathnam Naidu
...Respondent

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, against the decree
passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore on 09.11.2006 in
A.S.No.33 of 2006 confirming the decree dated 31.8.2005 passed by the
Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District in O.S.No.199 of 2000.


          For Appellant          : Ms.S.Vijaya Lakshmi
          For Respondent         : Mr.Arun Anbumani

                                JUDGMENT

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent

findings of the Courts below.

2.The Appellant is the plaintiff in the Suit O.S.No.199 of 2000 on

the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore District. They have

S.A.No.760 of 2007 filed a suit for recovery of a sum Rs.1,64,970/- together with interest and

costs against the respondents/defendants. The basis for the claim is that

the respondents/defendants availed loan from the plaintiff by executing

the mortgage deed dated 12.03.1997. However, as seen from the written

statement filed by the respondents/defendants in the suit, they have

alleged that only under coercion and undue influence, the alleged

mortgage deed was executed and they have also alleged that fraud has

been played upon them by the Appellant by getting the mortgage deed

executed. They have also denied the receipt of any consideration under

the alleged mortgage deed.

3.By Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2005 in O.S.No.199 of

2000, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore District dismissed the suit filed

by the Appellant.

4.Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/plaintiff preferred an

appeal before the Principal District Court, Vellore in A.S.No.33 of 2006.

5.The Lower Appellate Court by its Judgment and Decree dated

09.11.2006 in A.S.No.33 of 2006 confirmed the findings of the Trial

Court and dismissed the appeal.

S.A.No.760 of 2007

6.Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this

Second Appeal.

7.Heard Ms.S.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the Appellant

and Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the respondent.

8.The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 03.08.2010 on

the following substantial questions of law.

(a) Is not the admission of execution of a mortgage deed and

registered in the Sub Registrar Office is a sufficient proof acknowledging

the debt.

(b) Is not the admission of the mortgage deed give rise to a

presumption that the executor is bound to discharge the loan.

(c) Is not the admission of the signature of the executant of the

mortgage deed tantamounts to imputing knowledge of the contents of the

document?

9.This Court has perused and examined the impugned judgments of

the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court. Both Courts have

concurrently held that the Appellant/plaintiff has not proved the debt as

no independent witness was examined and the attesting witness to the

S.A.No.760 of 2007 alleged mortgage deed Ex.A3 has also not been examined as a witness.

10.The Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court also held

as seen from the impugned judgments that the receipt of the consideration

by the respondents/defendants under the mortgage deed Ex.A3 has also

not been proved by the Appellant/plaintiff.

11.It is the case of the respondents/defendants that they never

borrowed any money in the mortgage deed under Ex.A3. They have

alleged in the written statement that the said mortgage deed was obtained

under threat and coercion and the Appellant/plaintiff has played fraud

upon them by getting the mortgage deed executed in their favour.

12.Admittedly, the Appellant/plaintiff has not produced any

documentary evidence before the Courts below proving that the

respondents/defendants had received any consideration under the

mortgage deed Ex.A3.

13.Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence

available on record and only thereafter have rejected the claim of the

Appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

the issues raies by the Appellant in the Second Appeal are only factual

issues which have been correctly considered by the Courts below and

there is no scope for interference as this Court can entertain any Second

S.A.No.760 of 2007 Appeal only when there are substantial questions of law involved.

14.As observed earlier, there is absolutely no substantial questions

of law are involved as there are no debatable issues of law raised by the

Appellant.

15.The substantial questions of law formulated by this Court on

03.08.2010 at the time of admission of this Second Appeal are answered

against the Appellant/plaintiff as they do not deserve any merit.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

30.06.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order pam

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

pam

To

1.The Principal District Court, Vellore.

2.The Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.

S.A.No.760 of 2007

S.A.No.760 of 2007

30.06.2021