JUDGMENT This appeal is at the instance of the defendant against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1981 dated 28-2-1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 46,654-15 towards principal and interest in pursuance of a simple mortgage deed dated 24-4-1969 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a I sum of Rs. 12,000/- agreeing to pay with f interest at 12% per annum. The suit is laid on f the claim that the defendant borrowed Rs. 12,000/- on 24-4-1969 and executed a simple mortgage deed agreeing for payment of 12% interest per annum. In spite of that since no payment was paid, the suit was filed. 2. In defence, the defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage deed but however, raised the plea of absence of consideration and also that the document was executed at the instance of his brother. Further, it was also claimed that the execution was done only with a view to showing the debts incurred by him to his creditors. The plaintiff is not entitled to the same. 3. On these pleadings, the Court below had framed the issues. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 and A-2 were marked. However, no documents were marked by the defendant. On a consideration of the evidence and material on record, the Court below has decreed the suit holding that the defendant is liable for the amounts under the suit mortgage. 4. In this appeal Sri R. Subba Rao, Counsel for the appellant fairly accepted the findings of the Court below on the execution of the mortgage. However, he sought to raise a new plea that under the rule of Damdupat, the suit amount could not have been to such an extent of Rs. 46,654-15 as the interest cannot go beyond the principal amount. Accordingly, the decree of the Court below for such an amount which is nearly four times the principal amount of Rs. 12,000/- is wholly unsustainable. 5. 46,654-15 as the interest cannot go beyond the principal amount. Accordingly, the decree of the Court below for such an amount which is nearly four times the principal amount of Rs. 12,000/- is wholly unsustainable. 5. Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, Counsel for the respondent, opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant on the ground that there is no foundation for the plea as sought to be raised now nor such a plea was taken at any stage including in this appeal and, therefore, it should not be permitted. 6. It is also pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had already filed an application in CMP NO.1 0635 of 2000 in this appeal to permit him to raise the plea of Damdupat. 7. The appeal being continuation of the suit and the plea as sought to be raised now being purely a legal one, it would be in the interest of justice to allow such a plea. The petition is accordingly ordered. 8. In support of his contention, the Counsel for the appellant sought to rely on Hukumchand v. Fulchand, Lokam Ramachandra Rao v. Bank of Baroda and M.R. Patil v. S.B. Rainade. Earlier, the principle of Damdupat has been enunciated by the Apex Court in Hukumchand's case which was followed by this Court in Lokam Ramachandra Rao's case even in respect of bank transactions. In view of the earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Madhwa Sidhanta Onatini Nidhi v. Venkataramanjulu Naidu, in this area, the principle of Damdupat was never applied but however, subsequently, the Apex Court in M.R. Patil’s case has held that the decision in Madhwa Sidhanta Onatini Nidhi case, is overruled (the same) and accordingly the principle of Damdupat is made applicable to all the transactions. In view of the binding decisions of the Apex Court, it has to be held that the principle of Damdupat applies to all transactions including the one in this case. 9. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there being no such opportunity to contest or even to lead any evidence, if necessary, on the applicability of the said principle and also the entitlement thereon by the appellant herein, necessarily, it calls for an enquiry. 10. 9. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there being no such opportunity to contest or even to lead any evidence, if necessary, on the applicability of the said principle and also the entitlement thereon by the appellant herein, necessarily, it calls for an enquiry. 10. These questions as to the applicability of the principle of Damdupat and the working out of equities thereunder require an enquiry with proper opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh enquiry and decision according to law in the light of the decisional law as above. The lower Court shall take up the matter on 21st August, 2000. The appellant is entitled to refund of the Court fee paid on this appeal. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.