JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, Counsel representing the appellants and Sri D.Ranganath Kumar, Counsel representing the respondents. 2. Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the present appellants, the legal representatives of the deceased 1st appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would point out that in the light of the clear evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 to the effect that there was no passing of consideration in relation to the mortgage transaction in question, attaching some importance to the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar and decreeing the suit cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it may be that D.W.1 can be taken to be an interested witness but the evidence of D.W.2 is available on record. The evidence of D.W.2 being independent evidence, much weight to be given to the said evidence. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of D.W.3 which would support the version of the appellants. At any rate, the Counsel would submit that even if the provisions of the Indian Registration Act to be carefully scrutinized, though an endorsement had been made by the Sub-Registrar, the presumption if any available is a rebuttable presumption and the same had been duly rebutted by the clear evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and hence decreeing the suit by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had touched the aspect of plea of small farmer. 3. Per contra, Sri Ranganath Kumar, Counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs would maintain that it is no doubt true that both the attestors D.W.1 and D.W.2 in one voice had deposed about the non-passing of consideration in relation to the mortgage transaction in question. The Counsel also would submit that apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 also is available on record which would clearly go to show that there is no such practice of taking any security whatsoever. The Counsel also would submit that apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 also is available on record which would clearly go to show that there is no such practice of taking any security whatsoever. The Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the very fact that after sufficiently a long time the suit had been instituted and no steps had been taken in this regard either by issuing the notice or otherwise or getting the said mortgage deed Ex.A.1 duly cancelled, these aspects also would go to show that the mortgage transaction in question is supported by consideration and the plea of security putforth by the defendant is an unsustainable one. The learned Counsel also would submit that apart from the evidence of P.W.1, not only the other evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 is available on record, the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar on Ex.A.1 would clearly go to show the payment of consideration in his presence and in addition to the evidence available on record, this important fact also can be taken into consideration for arriving at a conclusion that Ex.A.1 is a bona fide transaction. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence which had been recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the said findings being well considered findings, the same to be confirmed. 4. Heard the Counsel, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court. 5. In the light of the respective contentions advanced by the parties, the following Points arise for consideration in this Appeal: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court in relation to Ex.A.1 mortgage deed dated 2-4-1976 to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the plea of security putforth by the defendant to be sustained in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record ? 3. If so to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 6. Point Nos.1 and 2 : For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiffs" and "defendant" as shown in O.S.No.71/85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nandyal. 3. If so to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 6. Point Nos.1 and 2 : For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiffs" and "defendant" as shown in O.S.No.71/85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nandyal. The defendant being aggrieved of the Decree and Judgment made in the said suit had preferred this Appeal and since the appellant died, the other legal representatives already had been brought on record in C.M.P.No.30760/2003 dated 21-3-2006 and at present the legal representatives are prosecuting the present litigation. 7. The plaintiffs filed the suit to recover an amount of Rs.35,113-25 ps. on the basis of a registered mortgage deed dated 2-4-1976. It was pleaded in the plaint that on 2-4-1976 one Bandi Subbamma w/o. Subbanna borrowed a sum of Rs.7000/- from the plaintiffs and executed a registered mortgage deed mortgage deed in respect of the plaint schedule building agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 18% per annum payable at the end of every year with a default clause for compound interest on such failure. Towards the suit mortgage debt, the mortgagor did not make any payment in spite of demands and also the issue of a notice. Subbamma died leaving behind the defendant who is her only son and who succeeded to all her properties including the mortgaged property. After the death of Subbamma, the mortgagor, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant for payment of the amount due to them, however the defendant promised to pay but did not pay and hence the plaintiffs got issued a notice to the defendant. Having received the said notice the defendant neither paid the amount nor issued any reply and hence the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the amount due under the suit mortgage deed. The plaintiffs claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum as the defendant is not an agriculturist. As the mortgaged property is a house property within the limits of Nandyal Municipality the suit debt is exempt from the operation of Act IV of 1938. The interest stipulated is quite reasonable having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the same is not usurious and thus the plaintiffs claimed interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests. 8. The interest stipulated is quite reasonable having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the same is not usurious and thus the plaintiffs claimed interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests. 8. The defendant filed a written statement with the following averments : The suit mortgage deed is not supported by cash consideration and it was executed by the mother of the defendant only as a security. The plaintiffs are owners of a cinema theatre at Nandyal. The defendant was working as a clerk in the said theatre prior to 1976. In January 1976 the 1st plaintiff being the partner and proprietor of the said cinema theatre gave an authorization to the defendant to act as Manager of the said theatre authorizing him to deal with the affairs of the said cinema theatre with the Commercial Taxes Department and for that purpose the plaintiff wanted the defendant should make a deposit of cash of Rs.7000/- with them. The defendant pleaded his inability to deposit that much of cash and ultimately coming to know that the defendant's mother owns a house in Nandyal town, the plaintiffs wanted that house to be nominally mortgaged to them in lieu of cash security as required by them. Under the said circumstances the defendant prevailed upon his mother to nominally mortgage her house in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs.7000/- and the defendant being her only son, the mother of the defendant accepted to execute the mortgage deed and she did so on 2-4-1976. Thus the mortgage deed is not supported by cash consideration and it was executed as security for the job of the defendant. It was further pleaded that some time thereafter the defendant left the service of the plaintiffs and the defendant believed that the plaintiffs on account of their status and being rich will never go to the extent of making a false claim. The defendant never promised to discharge the suit debt. After receipt of the notice by the defendant, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and asked them about the same and the plaintiffs said that they formally issued a notice and so the defendant did not issue reply. The defendant never promised to discharge the suit debt. After receipt of the notice by the defendant, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and asked them about the same and the plaintiffs said that they formally issued a notice and so the defendant did not issue reply. It was also further pleaded that the defendant's mother who is the mortgagor was an agriculturist owning 36 cents of agricultural land in S.No.2029 of Nandyal and she was eking out her livelihood by cultivating that land and also by working as agricultural cooly and thus she was a small farmer on the date of the suit mortgage deed and by virtue of the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 the debt is deemed to have been completely discharged. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the following Issues were settled : 1. Whether the defendant execute the suit mortgage deed in the circumstances mentioned in para-4 of the written statement ? If so, whether he is not liable to pay the amount under the suit mortgage deed ? 2. Whether the defendant is debtor within the meaning of Section 3 of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (Act No.7 of 1977) ? 3. Whether the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (Act No.7 of 1977) ? 4. To what relief ? The trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, D.W.1 to D.W.3, marked Exs.A-1 to A-18 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence recorded findings in detail disbelieving the plea of security taken by the defendant and ultimately decreed the suit. Hence the present Appeal had been preferred. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear and categorical. P.W.1 is the 1st plaintiff in the suit who had deposed in detail about the mother of D.W.1 executing the mortgage deed, Ex.A.1, receiving consideration and also the said mother of D.W.1 executing the mortgage deed Ex.A.1, receiving consideration and also the said mother of D.W.1 giving tax receipts also at the time of mortgage. This witness also deposed about Ex.A.2, the register of ages, Ex.A.3 the register of employment, Ex.A.4 the Advocate's notice, Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 - house tax receipts, Ex.A.7 registration copy of mortgage deed dated 10-7-1967 and Ex.A-8 to Ex.A-10. This witness also deposed about Ex.A.2, the register of ages, Ex.A.3 the register of employment, Ex.A.4 the Advocate's notice, Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 - house tax receipts, Ex.A.7 registration copy of mortgage deed dated 10-7-1967 and Ex.A-8 to Ex.A-10. This witness also deposed about Ex.A-11 acknowledgement, Ex.A-12 death certificate, Ex.A-13 yet another acknowledgement, Ex.A-14 office copy of registered notice dated 19-11-1985 and Ex.A-15 returned postal cover. This witness P.W.1 was cross-examined at length and several suggestions put this witness relating to non-passing of consideration had been specifically denied. 11. P.W.2 deposed that he worked as Manager of National Cinema Theatre from 1-4-1976 to August 1986. He also deposed that he was dealing with cash in the theatre and authorization also was issued to the Commercial Tax Department about his appointment as Manager and no security was taken from him for the appointment as Manager. P.W.2 also further deposed about certain other additional facts. 12. P.W.3 deposed about Ex.A-16 letter addressed by the Manager, National Talkies, Nandyal to Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 7-2-1974, Ex.A- 17 letter addressed by the Assistant Manager to the Commercial Tax Officer dated 8-4-1985 and also about Ex.A-18 letter of authorization by the plaintiffs to the A.C.T.O. Nandyal dated 8-4-1976. P.W.4 deposed that the mother of the defendant had got three houses and she used to do sundry business and certain other additional facts also had been deposed by this witness. P.W.5 deposed that the mother of the defendant used to run a shop in the house in one portion and let out other portions to tenants and he had given particulars and details about the rents and other aspects. This is the oral and documentary evidence available placed on record on behalf of the plaintiffs. 13. As against this evidence, the evidence of D.W.1, the defendant is available who had deposed in detail that Ex.A.1 was taken as security and also had deposed that her mother is a small farmer. D.W.1 also deposed about Ex.B.1 registration copy of the sale deed dated 2-6-1977, Ex.B.2 tax receipt book, Ex.B.3 house tax receipt, Ex.B.4 another house tax receipt and the version of D.W.1 was supported by D.W.2, another attestor of Ex.A.1 who also deposed that no payment was made under Ex.A.1. Hence the defence is one of non-passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 though execution of the mortgage deed is not in serious controversy between the parties. Hence the defence is one of non-passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 though execution of the mortgage deed is not in serious controversy between the parties. In the cross examination of D.W.2, he deposed that he was present at the time of registration before the Sub-Registrar and he had attested Ex.A.1 and he had attested before the Sub-Registrar and the endorsement was written as the amount was given. But however, this witness asserted that no amount was given in his presence. He had denied the suggestions that he was deposing falsely only with a view to help D.W.1. Strong reliance was placed on the evidence of D.W.2 apart from the evidence of D.W.1 by the appellants. 14. D.W.3 deposed that he was working as D.C.T.O., Nandyal and on 27-1- 1976 the proprietor of National Talkies A.Nagabhusanam Setty sent an authorization letter regarding the appointment of the Manager of the theatre. The letter was addressed to A.C.T.O. Nandyal and the original letter is Ex.B.5. As per the said letter the defendant was appointed as the Manager of the theatre. In the cross-examination D.W.3 deposed that the letter shows the authorization of the defendant and the specimen signature as attested by Nagabhusanam Setty in Ex.B-5. It is needless to say that this aspect that the defendant worked for some time under P.W.1 is not in serious controversy and it is also needless to say that this evidence of D.W.3 is more or less formal in nature. 15. The question which may have to be decided is in a case of this nature where both the attestors in one voice had deposed that there was no passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 though the execution is admitted, in the light of the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar, can it be said that the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 had been proved or whether the contention that by adducing the evidence of both D.W.1 and D.W.2 the same had been duly rebutted to be accepted. Sections 58 and 60 of the Indian Registration Act had been relied upon in this regard. Sections 58 and 60 of the Indian Registration Act had been relied upon in this regard. Section 58 of the Registration Act 1908 deals with Particulars to be endorsed on documents admitted to registration and Section 58(1)(c) reads as hereunder : "On every document admitted to registration, other than a copy of a decree or order or a copy, sent to registering officer under Section 89, there shall be endorsed, from time to time, the following particulars, namely: (a)....... (b)....... (c) any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of the Registering Officer in reference to the execution of the document and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence in reference to such execution." Section 60 of the said Act deals with Certification of Registration and sub- section (2) specifies : "Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the Registering Officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in Section 59, have occurred as therein mentioned." 16. The trial Court no doubt placed reliance on several decisions and came to the conclusion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 and accordingly decreed the suit. On appreciation of the whole oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that apart from the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar and the evidence of P.W.1, if the other attending circumstances also are taken into consideration, it can be taken that though the defendant examined himself as D.W.1, further supported by the evidence of D.W.2, the same had not been rebutted. In other words, the defendants were unsuccessful in rebutting the endorsement made by the Sub- Registrar for the undernoted reasons. 17. It is no doubt true that always as a matter of rule it cannot be laid down that merely because the endorsement had been made by the Sub- Registrar, necessarily it is to be inferred that a mortgage deed is supported by consideration. It is also true that there is evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. It is needless to say that the execution of Ex.A.1 is not in controversy. It is also true that there is evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. It is needless to say that the execution of Ex.A.1 is not in controversy. The executant of the document, i.e., the mother of D.W.1 is no more. It is also needless to say that D.W.1 is an interested witness in denying passing of consideration under Ex.A.1. Incidentally, he is also an attestor and his evidence cannot be given much weight. The other evidence available is that of D.W.2. The admissions made by D.W.2 in the cross-examination also had been referred to supra. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, not only the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar is available on Ex.A.1, but there is other evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5, which would go to show that this practice of taking documents by way of security in the cases of employment had not been in vogue on the part of the plaintiffs. This evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 definitely would throw much light on the aspect and in a way would negative the plea of security which had been putforth by the defendant. Apart from this aspect of the matter, yet another important aspect is that it appears from the evidence of both P.W.1 and D.W.1 that D.W.1 had discontinued from service after some time, but for reasons best known, though there is sufficient gap of time in between till the date of institution of the suit, D.W.1 had not taken any steps whatsoever to see that the document either is duly cancelled or at least no steps had been taken to bring it to the notice of the plaintiffs that it was only a nominal transaction executed by way of security. This conduct of the defendant also may have to be taken into consideration. Hence, viewed from any angle, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court need no disturbance at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the findings are hereby confirmed. 18. Point No.3: In the light of the findings recorded by this Court, the Appeal being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. Inasmuch as the original defendant is no more, the parties to the litigation to bear their own costs.