Case Note & Summary
The appeal suit was filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by the V Additional District Court, Madurai in O.S.No.155 of 2015, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of money based on a registered mortgage deed. The plaintiff, M.Venkatesan, claimed that the defendant, T.Rengarajan, borrowed Rs.10,00,000 on 09.01.2013 and executed a registered mortgage deed bearing No.108/2013 in respect of the suit property, agreeing to repay with interest at 2% per month. Despite demands and a legal notice dated 08.06.2015, the defendant failed to repay, leading to the suit. The defendant denied borrowing any amount or executing the mortgage deed, alleging that the deed was fabricated and concocted. He claimed that he had handed over his title deed to his friend P.K.Balasubramanian to help him obtain a loan from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff took advantage of the possession of the title deed to forge the defendant's signature. The defendant also contended that the interest rate was exorbitant and violative of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The trial court framed issues including whether the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary decree. After trial, the court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the mortgage deed was a registered document and the plaintiff had examined the attestor and the Sub-Registrar to prove execution. The defendant did not examine any expert to prove forgery of his signature. The court held that a registered document carries a presumption of genuineness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the burden was on the defendant to prove that his signature was forged. Since the defendant failed to discharge this burden, the trial court's decree was correct. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Section 96 CPC - Appeal Suit - The appellant/defendant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit for recovery of money based on a registered mortgage deed. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the mortgage deed through attestation and registration, and the defendant's bare denial without expert evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of genuineness. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence Act - Presumption of genuineness of registered document - Section 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Registered mortgage deed - The court held that a registered document carries a presumption of genuineness, and the burden shifts to the person challenging it to prove forgery. The defendant failed to produce any expert evidence or examine the attesting witnesses to substantiate his claim of fabricated signature. (Paras 8-12) C) Contract Act - Mortgage - Interest rate - Section 2(c) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Exorbitant interest - The defendant contended that the interest rate of 24% p.a. was exorbitant and violative of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The court did not specifically rule on this point but upheld the trial court's decree which presumably considered the interest. (Paras 4-6) D) Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 - Applicability - The defendant raised a defence that the plaintiff was punishable under this Act for charging exorbitant interest. However, the court did not find merit in this defence as the defendant failed to prove the alleged exorbitance or that the Act applied. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in decreeing the suit for recovery of money based on a registered mortgage deed when the defendant denied execution and alleged forgery.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2015 by the V Additional District Court, Madurai, are confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Presumption of genuineness of registered document
- Burden of proof on defendant to prove forgery
- Necessity of expert evidence to dispute signature
- Applicability of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act
- 2003
