9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit mortgage deed is supported by consideration? 2. Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to a decree? If so, to what amount? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit mortgage deed is supported by consideration? The plaintiff claimed that the mortgage deed dated 5.4.1972 was executed by the deceased Veerasamy Reddiyar for Rs.15,000/- borrowed for purchasing land. The defendants contended that the mortgage was executed without consideration and that they are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts. The trial court dismissed the suit, concluding that the execution of the mortgage deed and the passing of consideration were not properly proved, as none of the attestors to the document were examined. The court also found that the defendants were not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts. On appeal, the court examined whether the mortgage deed was supported by consideration. The execution of the mortgage deed was admitted by the defendants, shifting the burden of proof to them to disprove the passing of consideration. The court referred to Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side. The court noted that the oral evidence of P.W.2 (the plaintiff's husband) and the recitals in the registered document Ex.A1 were sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof. The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for the non-examination of the second defendant, who was a party to Ex.A1 and could have provided first-hand evidence regarding the execution and consideration of the mortgage deed. The court concluded that the recitals in Ex.A1, supported by the oral evidence of P.W.2, indicated that the mortgage deed was executed to discharge a previous debt incurred by Veerasamy Reddiyar. The court found no reason to doubt the passing of consideration as stated in Ex.A1 and held that the mortgage deed was supported by consideration. 2. Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to a decree? If so, to what amount? The court found that the plaintiff had proved the case regarding the passing of consideration under Ex.A1. The trial court's judgment, which had dismissed the suit on the grounds that Ex.A1 was not supported by consideration, was found to be erroneous. The appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a preliminary decree for Rs.31,200/- with subsequent interest. The court also noted that the defendants' claim for benefits under the Debt Relief Acts was not challenged before the appellate court. Conclusion: The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for, with costs throughout, and granted three months' time for payment.
|
