- (1.) This appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent against the appellant for realization of a sum of Rs.27,133.69p as mortgage dues. The plaintiff's case is as follows:
(2.) The defendant is the owner of the properties described in schedule A to the plaint. On December 29, 1954, Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. advanced a loan of Rs.21,000/- to the defendant at her request and the defendant agreed to pay the loan with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. On the same day the defendant executed a promissory note for the said sum of Rs.21,000/- in favour of the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. Subsequently on the same day the defendant deposited her Title Deed regarding the properties described in schedule A with the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. at its office at 23/A, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. On December 29, 1955 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.1890/- to the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. towards the principal amount. Thereafter all the assets and liabilities of the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act 31 of 1956). The defendant has not made any other payment towards the said loan or towards the interest inspite of demands. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of the amount of the loan together with interest calculated upto 3rd May, 1960.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. The defendant denied her liability for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed to be an illiterate pardanashin lady. She asserted that she did not know how to read and write any language whatsoever. She denied to have taken the loan alleged by the plaintiff from the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. on executing a promissory note. She also denied that she deposited her title deed with the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. for the purpose of creating a security for the loan as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the story of any payment towards the principal and interest. The defendant's positive case is that the promissory note and the memorandum are all forged documents. It was alleged that the defendant kept her title deed and many other valuable papers with one of her trusted friends, Sm. Giribala Debi of Tantipara, Baranagar, who used to look after her properties, as the defendant used to reside at Benares and other places of pilgrimage for the major part of the year. The said Giribala died sometime ago without making over the deed and other papers to the defendant. The defendant tried to get back her title deed and other papers from family members of Giribala and they assured the defendant that those papers would be returned to her after those were found out on search. It was alleged that some designing person or persons somehow secured her valuable title deed and a false, fraudulent and fictitious claim has been made against her on the basis of a false fabricated and forged promissory note and a memorandum of document.;