Judgment N. Kumar, , J.—This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for money as prayed for. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff M/s. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited is an undertaking of the State Government of Karnataka. It is established to assist the farmers in the State Government of Karnataka in their agricultural operations by supplying to and equitably distributing among them the seeds, fertilisers, insecticides and fungicides etc. The plaintiff could appoint selling agent distributors and also enter into credit transactions with them to receive the supplies of the plaintiff on credit basis by offering adequate valuable security in the form of immovable property or properties belonging to them or their guarantors. The 1st defendant is a proprietary concern and 2nd defendant is a proprietor. 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff-Corporation in the 1st week of January, 1970 and sought for selling agent distributorship in fertilizers, seeds etc. He also sought for credit facilities. He assured the plaintiff that he would abide by all the terms and conditions of the agency agreements as well as the credit policy of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appointed the 1st defendant as its agent. The 3rd defendant, the son of the 2nd defendant is his Power of Attorney holder executed the agency agreement dated 8.10.1971 at Bangalore. He also executed the guarantee agreement. The defendants delivered and deposited the registered documents of title relating to agricultural land situated in Dummalli village, Nidige hobli, Shimoga taluk with the plaintiff, with an intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The Memorandum of equitable, Mortgage by deposit title deeds also came to be executed on 8.10.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff started supplying the fertilizers and other products. It was a running account The defendants drew their first supply from the plaintiff-Corporation on 16.1.1970 and the last payment that they have made is on 7.10.1972. Thereafter they did not drew any supplies nor made any payment towards the amount outstanding i.e., cost of supplies. Finally, the plaintiff-Corporation struck the balance on 5.2.1975 and found that the defendants were due in a sum of Rs. 1.99.523-00/-. Thereafter they did not drew any supplies nor made any payment towards the amount outstanding i.e., cost of supplies. Finally, the plaintiff-Corporation struck the balance on 5.2.1975 and found that the defendants were due in a sum of Rs. 1.99.523-00/-. When the defendants did not pay the aforesaid amount in spite of several reminders, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,99,523-00/-together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. in default of such payment for sale of the mortgaged property. The said suit was filed on 16.7.1975 on the file of the Civil Judge (Mayo Hall, Bangalore. When the defendants contended, the Court at Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction, as the mortgaged properties are at Shimoga, the Court upheld the said contention and ordered for return of the plaint. After taking return of the plaint, it was represented on the same at the Court at Shimoga. 4. The defendants 1(a) & (b) after service of summons filed the written statement contesting the claim. They denied all the allegations in the plaint. They denied the agreement entered into between the parties. They denied their agency, their mortgage by deposit of title deeds and receipt of any products of the plaintiff. They contended no balance was struck on 5.2.1975 alleged in the plaint nor they due a sum of Rs.1,99,523-00/- and they sought for dismissal of the suit. Thereafter they also contended the deed transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was a separate by itself there was no continuity. They did not agree for a running account. They were not notified the alleged striking of balance as on 5.2.1975. There was no notice. As and when the plaintiff gives all the detailed particulars, the defendants would file a detailed written statement. They did not admit the correct accounts. However, in para-5 of the plaint, they stated the plaintiff would not be entitled to a sum more than Rs.30,000/-. The various amounts deposited to the account of deposit under various invoices as per account extract furnished shows that it pertains the manure supplied, it was not supplied to the defendants. They contended simply an amount of Rs.17,714.31/- is added under Debit Note No.256 as interest dated 31.3.1973 and similarly Rs.17,700.16/-dated 31.3.1974 under debit note No.203 and again Rs.16,619.85/- towards interest under debit note No.55, dated 5.2.1972. They contended simply an amount of Rs.17,714.31/- is added under Debit Note No.256 as interest dated 31.3.1973 and similarly Rs.17,700.16/-dated 31.3.1974 under debit note No.203 and again Rs.16,619.85/- towards interest under debit note No.55, dated 5.2.1972. All these debit items the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. If on proper and fair calculation if any amount becomes payable, the same may be ordered to be paid in six equal annual installments. They have not agreed to interest at the rate on which it is claimed. The plaint did not disclose at what rate the interest is calculated. The defendants have sustained heavy loss on account of the fertilizers not being supplied in time, by the plaintiff with the result the defendants had to sell the same to the farmers at the lower rate. The defendants would produce their own statement of account, as per which they might have to pay only a very small amount and therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues as under : (i) Whether, the defendants executed the agency agreement dated 8.10.1971 as alleged ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff-corporation proves that the first defendant delivered and deposited the title deeds as alleged ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff-corporation proves the defendants become due in a sum of Rs.1,99,523/- as alleged ? (iv) Whether the suit as filed is not maintainable ? (v) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (vi) To what reliefs ? 6. The plaintiff in order to substantiate its claim examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5. They produced 466 documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P466. On behalf of the defendants, the 3rd defendant Sri Marigowda was examined as DW-1. He did not produce any documents. PW-5 is a handwriting expert, who has been examined in the case to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. He has submitted his report at Exs.C1 and C2 and also produced 19 documents Exs.C2(a) to C19. 7. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of agency agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants on 8.10.1971. The Court also held that the plaintiff-Corporation has proved that the defendants became due in a sum of Rs.1,99,523/-towards the value of the fertilizers and other products supplied with interest. The Court also held that the plaintiff-Corporation has proved that the defendants became due in a sum of Rs.1,99,523/-towards the value of the fertilizers and other products supplied with interest. It held the suit is maintainable. It also held the suit is not. barred by time and therefore it decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants are in appeal. 8. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court contended that it is clear from the plaint allegations the suit is based on accounts settled. Account itself is not produced before the Court. What is produced is only the invoices. If the suit is based on invoices, each invoice has to be taken as a separate transaction and then the Court has to find out whether the amount due under the invoice is repaid. The suit was filed on 16.7.1975 at Bangalore Court. On an objection taken regarding the territorial jurisdiction, the Bangalore Court upheld the objection and returned the plaint for representation before the proper Court. Accordingly, the plaint was represented in Shimoga Court on 22.8.1980, by which time, the time stipulated for filing the suit on the basis of invoice had expired and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred by time. Secondly, he contended if the suit has to be held as a suit based on mortgage, the mortgage is not proved. In the mortgage deed there is no mention about the rate of interest payable and therefore, claiming interest at 12% prior to the date of the suit and subsequent date of the suit is illegal and therefore the decree of the trial Court requires to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and decree. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration is as under : (i) Whether the suit is not maintainable as contended bv the defendants ? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (iii) Whether the mortgage by deposit of title deed is proved ? 11. Point No. 1 : The entire argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants proceeds on the assumption that the suit claim is based on accounts settled on 5.2.1975. (ii) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (iii) Whether the mortgage by deposit of title deed is proved ? 11. Point No. 1 : The entire argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants proceeds on the assumption that the suit claim is based on accounts settled on 5.2.1975. The said statement of account is not produced. Account books are not produced. What is produced is only invoices. Therefore, it was contended the suit claim is not established. The said submission has no substance. Ex.P19 is the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of business which shows the supplies made, value of the supplies, payment received on account and when balance was struck of on 5.2.1975, an amount of Rs.1,47,368/- was due. The invoice produced in the case shows that the defendants had agreed to pay interest at 9% p.a. for a period of 90 days and over due payment with penal interest at 12% would be payable and therefore the total amount of Rs. 1,99,523/- claimed in the plaint is inclusive of interest 12% p.a. on Rs.1,47,368/-. The agreement entered into between the parties is admitted. The supplies are admitted. The invoice produced in the case is admitted. It is not pointed out how the accounts produced in the case is not correct. In fact the accounts are not disputed, three entries are disputed. It is not shown in the evidence how it is incorrect. Under these circumstances, the trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in particular, the account statement, invoice produced and acknowledgment of liability which in the handwriting of the defendants, has rightly came to the conclusion that the defendants had established the claim of Rs.1,99,523/- being the amount due on the basis of the balance struck on in other words, on the basis of the account stated. We do not see any illegality in the said finding on record, which calls for any interference. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered. 12. Point No.2 : On the day the suit was filed in Bangalore Court on 16.7.1975, admittedly, the suit was in time. We do not see any illegality in the said finding on record, which calls for any interference. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered. 12. Point No.2 : On the day the suit was filed in Bangalore Court on 16.7.1975, admittedly, the suit was in time. After the order came to be passed by the Bangalore Court holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction, the plaint was returned and it was represented at Shimoga Court, on the same day on which the plaint was taken return from Bangalore Court i.e., on 22.8.1980. For the purpose of limitation by virtue of Section 14, the period from which the suit is being prosecuted in the wrong forum has to be excluded. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by time on 22.8.1980. When it was represented in Shimoga Court without any delay. The said question would not arise in this case, because the suit is for recovery of the money on the basis of equitable mortgage. 12 years is the period stipulated for filing the suit on the basis of mortgage. Therefore, the suit is in time and the trial Court rightly held the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by time. 13. Point No.3 : It was contended that mortgage is not proved. Again it is based on the wrong assumption. The memorandum of agreement evidencing the deposit by the dues, which are duly executed on the stamp paper is produced at Ex.P33. That apart, the original documents are deposited with the plaintiff, which is produced by them before the Court which are marked as Exhibits. In the case of deposit by mortgage title deeds, mortgage is created by deposit of title deeds which is not disputed in this case. The memorandum of mortgage of title deeds is yet a piece of evidence of the mortgage. Deposit of title deeds coupled with the memorandum entered between the parties clearly establishes the mortgage by deposit of title deeds and therefore the findings recorded by the trial Court is based on the legal evidence and also do not call for any interference. 14. In fact, the defendant went to the extent of denying his signature. The Commissioner and handwriting expert was to be appointed. He has submitted his report. 14. In fact, the defendant went to the extent of denying his signature. The Commissioner and handwriting expert was to be appointed. He has submitted his report. He has been examined as PW-5 and he has been cross-examined. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record including the evidence of the handwriting expert has held the documents produced by the plaintiff in this case are duly executed and proved in accordance with law and the combined effect of that evidence establishes the agency between the plaintiff and the defendants agency, agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendants and deposit of title deeds with the intention of creating equitable mortgage. The accounts produced in the case shows that a sum of Rs.1,99,563/- is the amount due. 15. The invoice shows rate of interest agreed between the parties. The suit transaction is a commercial transaction. The Memorandum of mortgage do not stipulate the rate of interest. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a., which is the agreed rate of interest. As the suit transaction is a commercial transaction, the trial Court is justified in granting the future interest also at 12% in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil procedure. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity, which calls for interference. 16. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No costs. 17. Appeal dismissed. *Against judgment and decree of Pri. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.) Shimoga, D/- 10-04-2001.