Judgment :- This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.1991 made in O.S.No.746 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Sangagiri, in and by which the learned Sub Judge after analysing the evidence found that the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim and accordingly, dismissed the suit. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit. .3. The plaintiff states as follows: .The plaintiff company is financing handloom and allied industries. The Managing Director is authorised to take legal proceedings by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Plaintiffs Company. 4. Fourth defendant is a partnership firm doing textile business at Door No.39, Thammanna Chetty Street, Komarapalayam, Salem District. Defendants 1 and 2 are the parents of the fourth defendant firm. Second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Third defendant is the daughter of the first defendant. First defendant is a share holder with plaintiff Corporation holding 1000 shares to the value of Rs.10,000/- under member No.13366. Defendants have been granted loans for the handloom cloth business carried on by the defendants from 1979 onwards. Promissory notes have been executed in favour of plaintiff for the loan amounts borrowed by defendants from time to time. Defendants 1 to 3 individually and defendants 1 and 2 as partners of fourth defendant (M/s. Subramaniam & Co.,) have executed the promissory notes on various dates when money was borrowed. As on date, there are three loans in respect of the equitable mortgage mentioned in this plaint pending payment. The total amount due to plaintiff in all the above three transactions is Rs.1,47,477.17 inclusive of interest till 30.11.1983. .5. For all the above loan transactions, defendants 1 to 4 have executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 have executed the said promissory notes personally and defendants 1 and 2 as partners of fourth defendant firm. Defendants have agreed to pay interest at the rates to be decided by the Board of Directors from time to time by way of resolutions. 6. All the promissory note transactions mentioned in above have been entered in the ledger pages maintained by the plaintiff against the defendant. The various amounts paid for the various transactions by the defendants for interest and principal are also credited in the said ledger pages. Interest is also debited at the binding prevailing rates. 6. All the promissory note transactions mentioned in above have been entered in the ledger pages maintained by the plaintiff against the defendant. The various amounts paid for the various transactions by the defendants for interest and principal are also credited in the said ledger pages. Interest is also debited at the binding prevailing rates. As per the ledger pages of the plaintiff, a total sum of Rs.1,47,477.17 is due to the plaintiff from the defendants till 30.12.1983 inclusive of interest till then and principal. 7. Defendants 1 to 4 have deposited the title deeds relating to the Schedule II belonging to defendants as security for the amounts due from defendants to plaintiff at that time and in future at their Salem Office with a view to create an equitable mortgage over the same in favour of plaintiff. Thereafter defendants have on 110. 1979 executed a memorandum acknowledging to deposit of title deeds earlier with a view to create an equitable mortgage for the amount due to plaintiff and have thus created an equitable mortgage over the schedule II properties in favour of the plaintiff for the amounts due under the three promissory note transactions as detailed in Schedule-I. All the defendants are therefore bound to pay the above sum of Rs.1,47,477.17 with future interest till date of payments personally and from the mortgaged properties. Hence, the suit. .8. The defendants state as follows: .The plaintiff is not entitled to claim a huge amount of Rs.1,47,4717. The interest claimed is highly usurious, excessive and exorbitant. 9. No statement of account is submitted alongwith the plaint and these defendants are at a loss to know how the interest is calculated and what is the rate of interest. The defendant is not aware as to how the amounts are claimed. The plaintiff simply given particulars regarding principal amount and accrued interest till 30.11.83 in Schedule-I. In these circumstances, the suit being based on accounts, the same has to be dismissed in the absence of any account filed alongwith the plaint. The suit has to be rejected since the plaintiff has not come forward with its proper accounts maintained in their regular course of business. 10. The plaintiff company is a company registered under Companies Act. The plaintiff has not produced the memorandum and Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Company. The suit has to be rejected since the plaintiff has not come forward with its proper accounts maintained in their regular course of business. 10. The plaintiff company is a company registered under Companies Act. The plaintiff has not produced the memorandum and Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Company. The plaintiff company has not produced any document that M. Annamalai is the Managing Director and he is entitled to file suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini. 11. The plaintiff used to get blank printed papers before advancing loans to the defendants. This defendant availed loans on three different dates. On each occasion, the plaintiff used to get several signatures in several printed papers, the contents of which this defendant did not know. 12. The defendants never agreed to pay interest at the rates to be decided by the Board of Directors from time to time by way of resolution. 13. It is not admitted that the defendants 1 to 4 have deposited the title deeds relating to the properties in Schedule.II belonging to defendants as security for the amount due from defendants to plaintiff at that time and in future at their Salem Office with a view to create an equitable mortgage over the same in favour of plaintiff. The defendant never deposited the title deeds at Salem as alleged by the plaintiff. One Siddalingam, the then Branch Manager and Venkataraman, the then Field Officer came to the house of the defendants which is situated at Komarapalayam and got the title deeds from this defendant and assured that the loan will be sanctioned shortly after scrutinizing the title deeds. After a lapse of one month, the above said officers came to the house of the defendants and got the signatures of the defendants in a blank promissory notes. In the above circumstances, the alleged equitable mortgage is totally invalid since the title deeds have not been deposited by the defendants at Salem with a view to create an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 14. One Mr. Venkataraman was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.41 were marked on the side of the plaintiff to prove their claim. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 14. One Mr. Venkataraman was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.41 were marked on the side of the plaintiff to prove their claim. Second respondent Siddappa Ganesan was examined as D.W.1 and no documents have been filed on the side of the defendants to confront the claim of the plaintiff. 15. The Lower Court after analysing both oral and documentary evidence found that the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim and accordingly, dismissed the suit. The said appeal is filed by the plaintiff against such finding. 16. Heard Thiru. D. Aravindan, the learned counsel for appellant and no one represented on behalf of the respondents/defendants. 117. Upon hearing the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the points for determination are:- 1) Whether the defendants obtained loan from the plaintiff in the business transaction? 2) Whether the defendants created mortgage in respect of the suit property towards the title deed which is the subject matter of the suit? 3) Whether the findings of the Lower Court in dismissing the suit is in order? 18. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants obtained loan which is the subject matter of the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the said debt is subsisting even now. He further contended that the defendants deposited the title deed of the schedule mentioned properties as a charge for the debts. The defendants objected the claim of the plaintiffs and submitted that the title of the schedule mentioned property was not handed over to the plaintiff as a charge for the debts of the defendants and that the plaintiff obtained signatures from the defendants in several printed papers without informing the contention of the same to the defendants and that the plaintiff misused the same alleging that the title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties were deposited as charge for the debts which is contrary to the fact. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim on the basis of deposit of title deeds for the schedule mentioned properties as charge for the said claim. The rival claims are considered in detail. The fact that the defendants obtained loan from the plaintiff is not disputed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim on the basis of deposit of title deeds for the schedule mentioned properties as charge for the said claim. The rival claims are considered in detail. The fact that the defendants obtained loan from the plaintiff is not disputed. The fact that the title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties were handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff were also not disputed. The title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties which were in possession of the plaintiff were marked in this case to prove the genuineness of the plaintiffs case. The ledger account was also produced by the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the suit claim. 19. Though the defendants admitted the borrowing from the plaintiff which is the subject matter of the suit, they have not stated that they discharged the said amount. In this case, the defendant got the notice of the plaintiff about the debt due by him and also charge over the schedule property with reference to the borrowings. The advocate notice dated 9. 1983 is marked as Ex.A.25. The receipt of the said notice was not denied by the defendants. It is useful to refer the recitals in Ex.A.25 for better appreciation. "For all the above loan transactions No.1 to 4 of you have executed promissory notes in favour of our client. No.1 to 3 of you have executed the said pronotes personally and No.1 to 2 of you as partners of No.4 of you. In the schedule-I appended herewith, the amounts paid by you for the various transactions is duly shown. You have agreed to pay interest at the rates to be decided by the Board of Directors from time to time by way of resolutions. 4. Thereafter No.1 to 4 of you have deposited the title deeds relating to the under mentioned properties in schedule II belonging to you, as security for the amounts due from you to our client at that time and in future at their Salem office with a view to create an equitable mortgage over the same in favour of our client. Thereafter, you have on 110. Thereafter, you have on 110. 1979 executed a memorandum on acknowledging the deposit of title deeds earlier with a view to create an equitable mortgage for the amount due to our client and have thus created an equitable mortgage over the under mentioned schedule II properties in favour of our client for the amounts due under the three pronotes transaction as detailed in schedule I here under. All of you are therefore bound to pay the above sum of Rs.1,42,917.64 with future interest till date of payments personally and from the mortgaged properties. 20. The defendants personally sent a reply to the plaintiffs lawyer notice on 10. 1983 as per Ex.A.30. The contents of the said reply reads as follows: Tamil Later, the defendants sent a reply to Ex.A.25 through his lawyer, which is marked as Ex.A.31. The reply reads as follows: "3. The allegations mentioned in para 2 of your Notice are mostly correct except the amount due to my clients. It is not admitted that the sum of Rs.1,42,917.64 is due as on 38. 1983. The amount due to your client should be less than the amount mentioned in your Notice. The amount shown in Schedule I is not correct. 4. My client is in a financial crisis due to slackness in business. Anyhow, he is trying his best to reduce the liability by paying the correct balance amount in instalments. He is making earnest attempt to raise funds to pay the amount to your client." 21. Though the plaintiff specifically brought to the notice of the defendants about the deposit of title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties as a charge for the debts, the defendants have not confronted the same in his reply which were marked as Ex.A.30 and Ex.A.31. Only in the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff obtained the title deed of the schedule mentioned properties by deceitful means. If the contention of the defendants in the written statement is really true, they ought to have referred the same in his reply which were marked as Ex.A.30 and Ex.A.31 and in the absence of such a specific plea in their reply, I am of the considered view that the claim of the defendants that the plaintiff obtained the title deeds of schedule mentioned properties by deceitful means, which is only an afterthought and therefore such defence cannot be accepted. .22. .22. The Lower Court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and held that the plea of deposit of title deeds for the schedule mentioned properties as a charge for the debt was not proved and ultimately dismissed suit. The case on hand is totally different from the facts referred in the ruling cited by the Lower Court. In this case, the defendants not denied about the deposit of title deeds as charge for the debts in his reply notice dated 10. 1983 and 10. 1983 marked as Ex.A.30 and Ex.A.31 respectively. Therefore, the finding of the Lower Court in negativing the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred in the judgment cannot be stated to be in order, in view of the fact that the defendants not confronted the case of the plaintiff with regard to the deposit of title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties as charge over the debt in his advocate notice dated 9. 1983. 23. Even otherwise, the defendants in his reply which was marked as Ex.A.31 admitted his liability, undertook to pay the same in instalments. In such view of the fact, the finding of the Lower Court, dismissing the suit in entirety is not in order and the same is liable to be set aside. Further, the Lower Court erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case with regard to deposit of title deeds with reference to the suit properties as a charge over the debt as the defendants themselves not confronted the claim of the plaintiff referred in the notice dated 9. 1983, in their reply notices dated 10. 1983 and 10. 1983. From the narration of evidence coupled with the documents filed in this case, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim for which the defendants deposited the title deeds of the suit properties as charge for the debts. The finding of the Lower Court in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff in entirety is not in order. Therefore, the finding of the Lower Court is liable to be set aside. .24. Point No.3: .The Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. The finding of the Lower Court in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff in entirety is not in order. Therefore, the finding of the Lower Court is liable to be set aside. .24. Point No.3: .The Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the findings rendered in Point Nos.1 and 2, the finding of the Lower Court in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.746 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Sangagiri is not in order and is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. 25. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Court in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.746 of 1985 is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. However, the parties have to bear their respective costs.