Madras High Court
M.T.Arumugam vs / on 16 July, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.507 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.07.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Appeal Suit No.507 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.18712 of 2022
1. M.T.Arumugam, (44 years),
S/o.Dhasappan,
Old No.281, New Door No.144-B(1),
Sathi Main Road, Veerapandi Village,
Gobichettipalayam Division,
Erode District.
2. P.Chandra, (39 years),
W/o.M.T.Arumugam,
Old No.281, New Door No.144-B(1),
Sathi Main Road,
Veerapandi Village,
Gobichettipalayam Division,
Erode District. ... Appellants/Defendants
/versus/
G.K.Karthick, (41 years),
S/O. K.K.Karuppan,
Old Door No.20,
New Door No.4,
Thirunagar, Gobichettipalayam Division,
Erode District. ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer:- Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.22/2019 passed by
the Learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam at
Erode District dated 28.06.2022 and to allow this appeal.
___________
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
A.S.No.507 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Arun
***
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed by the defendant, being aggrieved by
the preliminary decree passed in the suit for recovery of money on
mortgage.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the plaint is that:-
The plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant
on 28/01/2013 as against the mortgage of the suit schedule property. It
was agreed by the defendant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum
and to redeem the mortgage. However, despite handing over the title
documents of the property and receiving the loan money, the defendant
promised to redeem with interest. The defendant failed to discharge the
mortgage loan. Hence, legal notice dated 13/08/2018 was issued to the
defendants. The defendants received the notice on the next day but did not
reply. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- as
principal and Rs.7,57,750/- towards the interest, from the date of filing the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
suit and for the Cost.
3. The defendants contested the claim by filing written statement
stating that the property mortgaged is their joint property, which they
purchased on 25.07.2011. It is true that borrowed loan from the plaintiff on
28.01.2013, but it is not Rs.7,00,000/- as contended by the plaintiff but it
was only Rs.5,00,000/-. On the direction of the plaintiff, the mortgage deed
was executed by mentioning the loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. As agreed,
the defendants were regularly paying the interest along with the portion of
the principal. Receipts been issued by the father of the plaintiff
acknowledging payment of interest and part principal. According to the
defendants, a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- been paid and only Rs.4,00,000/- is
balance to be paid. The defendants are ready to pay the money and get the
mortgage redeemed. However, they claim that the plaintiff, suppressing
these facts, had initiated the suit for recovery of money.
4. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed issued as
under:-
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of
money from the defendants?
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree?
(iii) Whether the plea of the defendants that they borrowed only
Rs.5,00,000/- is true?
(iv) What other relief the parties are entitled to?
5. Before the Court below, the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and
five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the
defendants, the first defendant had mounted the witness box, however, no
documents filed in support of his case.
6. The trial Court, on considering the evidence particularly the
registered mortgage deed marked as Ex.A1 and the evidence of PW.1 and
the partial admission of liability in the evidence of first defendant held that,
in the absence of contra evidence to substantiate the plea of the defendants
that they had borrowed only Rs.5,00,000/- and repaid a sum of
Rs.3,78,000/-, the plaintiff's case stands proved. As a result, a preliminary
decree for a sum of Rs.14,57,750/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of suit till the
date of recovery.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
7. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment and preliminary
decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the Court below failed
to properly appreciate the evidence of DW.1 regarding the actual loan
availed and the repayment of interest along with part of the principal
amount. The readiness of the defendants to pay the balance amount and get
the mortgage deed cancelled ought to have been considered by the Court
below.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the plaintiff had not established the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as loan
through any other document other than the mortgage deed. It is the duty of
the plaintiff to show the payment of Rs.7,00,000/-, when the defendant has
categorically denied such payment.
9. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted
that the oral evidence regarding payment of interest, contrary to the
contents of the document had been rightly rejected by the Court below.
Though, the defendants had pleaded that receipts for payment was issued by
the father of the plaintiff, the said document had not seen the light of the
day, which clearly exposes the defendants and their false claim of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
repayment.
10. Point for consideration:-
Whether the decree passed by the trial Court
dated 28.06.2022 is erroneous for want of proper
appreciation of evidence?
11. It is a case where an immovable property was mortgaged
through a registered document for a loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. The execution of
the mortgage deed is not denied by the defendants. The passing of
consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- under the mortgage is disputed but no
evidence to substantiate the plea raised in the written statement been put
forth by the defendants.
12. The specific case of the defendants is that, towards the loan
amount, they were periodically paying the interest and part of the principal
amount and also got receipts from the father of the plaintiff. However, those
receipts were not produced before the Court. After executing the mortgage
deed (Ex.A1) on 28.01.2013, till the receipt of the notice dated 14.08.2018,
as per the postal acknowledgement card marked as Ex.A4 & Ex.A5, there is
no evidence to show that the defendants had made any payment towards
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
the loan amount. That apart, the defendants made specific plea that having
paid around of Rs.3,78,000/- and expressed their readiness to pay the
balance amount and redeem the mortgage, in fact, they have not filed any
suit for redemption or tendered the balance loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to
indicate their intention of redeeming the mortgage.
13. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly passed the
preliminary decree and this Court finds no error or omission in the
appreciation of evidence.
14. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed with costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.07.2025
Index :Yes/No.
Neutral citation :Yes/No.
bsm
To,
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
16.07.2025
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
