M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for mortgage.
(2.) The plaintiff is the Life Insurance Corporation of India and its case is that the defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the properties described in Schedules B, B (1) and B (2) of the plaint. On June 14. 1955, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the Rajasthan Insurance Company Limited by deposit of title deeds and, on that date, executed a promissory note for the said sum in favour of the said Insurance Company and a memorandum embodying the terms of the transaction specifically mentioning therein the deposit of title deeds and the loan of the said amount already taken by him. On December, 29, 1955, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 975/- in part payment of the interest and since then has paid nothing in spite of repeated demands. The assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of the said Insurance Company having been transferred to and vested in the plaintiff on and from September 1, 1956 under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the dues from the defendant on account of the aforesaid mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the said Insurance Company. A sum of Rs. 86,450/- including the sum of Rs. 21,450/- as interest, is due to the plaintiff from the defendant under the aforesaid mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for a mortgage decree for the sale of the properties in suit.
(3.) The defendant Sunil Kumar Singh has contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been denied by him that he is the sole and absolute owner of the properties in suit. It is alleged that the property described in Schedule B to the plaint is the absolute property of his mother who is alive and is in possession there of, and the properties mentioned in Schedules B (1) and B (2) are the properties of the Mitakshara Hindu Joint Family to which he belongs. He has denied that he ever borrowed the sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the said Insurance Company or that he executed any promissory note or memorandum or deposited the title deeds on June 14, 1955, as alleged. It has been alleged by him that he had no necessity to borrow any money at any time, not to speak of such a heavy amount of Rs. 65,000/-, that the alleged promissory note and the memorandum are not genuine documents and that the signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures. The said documents have been manufactured by some person with an ulterior motive. He has averred that the title deeds relating to the properties in suit were never in his custody or possession and has denied the handing over by him of the title deeds to the said Insurance Company at its office at 23/A, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta and payment of the said sum of Rs. 975/- towards interest. The claim which has been made against him by the plaintiff is false and fictitious and the plaintiff is not entitled to institute the suit against him or to recover the alleged dues from him. It is contended that the alleged memorandum is not admissible in evidence without registration as it purports to create a charge. Upon the said allegations, he has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.;