Judgment : 1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 2. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant, heavily attacking the findings given by both the Courts below, submitted before this Court that when the appellant/defendant is an illiterate person, her signature was wrongly obtained in the mortgage deed without her consent by playing fraud and when that issue was rightly raised before the trial Court, no issue was framed regarding the truthfulness and validity of the mortgage deed. Moreover, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the appellant/defendant, when her signature was obtained in the mortgage deed and in the partition deed and both were presented at the same time, the trial Court ought to have framed a specific issue on the non est factum and put the respondent/plaintiff to disprove this specific plea. As this exercise has not been done by the trial Court, on appeal, the first appellate Court also again erroneously, accepting the findings of the trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.3, the attestor of the mortgage deed, who, in the cross examination, has stated that the mortgage deed was executed for old house, whereas only the lands were mortgaged, hence, the evidence of P.W.3 instead of being rejected, disallowed the appeal. Arguing further, the learned senior counsel contended that when the respondent/plaintiff also in her cross examination had specifically deposed that she was not having any direct knowledge about the execution of the mortgage deed and also the passing of consideration in the presence of the witnesses, hence, the case of the appellant/defendant ought to have been accepted by both the Courts below. When the respondent/plaintiff, who brought the suit, has also pleaded explicitly before the trial Court that she was not having any direct knowledge about the execution in the presence of the witnesses, the passing of consideration, registration of mortgage deed, etc., both the Courts below wrongly and repeatedly committed errors, even without looking into the issue of non est factum, therefore, the concurrent errors committed by both the Courts below are required to be interfered with. 3. This Court is unable to persuade itself to accept the above arguments. 3. This Court is unable to persuade itself to accept the above arguments. When the respondent/plaintiff, who advanced the loan of Rs.35,000/-to the appellant/defendant, rightly got executed a registered mortgage deed on 22.7.98 mortgaging the suit property on the condition that the interest thereon would also be paid, subsequently, when the appellant/defendant had not paid any amount to the respondent/plaintiff, a registered notice was sent on 9.7.2010. But, unfortunately, the appellant/defendant did not even bother to reply. In view of that, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit in O.S.No.319 of 2010 seeking a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the amount of Rs.72,800/-together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit. The trial Court, after framing the following issues, 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get suit amount. 2. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to had taken up the matter for trial. In the enquiry before the trial Court, apart from consideration of Ex.A1, the registered power deed dated 7.7.2010 given in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, who is none other than the wife of Mr.Ravi @ Ramesh, who advanced the loan to the appellant/defendant, to collect the mortgage amount, also went into the correctness of Ex.A2, the registered mortgage deed dated 22.7.98 executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of Mr. Ravi @ Ramesh. On perusal of the signature of the appellant/defendant Mrs. R.Annapoorani, the trial Court, after taking the admission made by the defendant that the signature found in the mortgage deed, Ex.A2 was hers, again taking note of the evidence of the crucial witness, namely, P.W.3, one of the attestors to Ex.A2-mortgage deed, that he had witnessed the borrowal of loan by the defendant from the plaintiff and the execution of the mortgage deed in the presence of witnesses and the signature of other witnesses was made in his presence, accepted the receipt of Rs.35,000/-from the plaintiff by the defendant. Again by considering the evidence of another crucial witness, namely, P.W.4, the scribe of the mortgage deed, who has stated that in Ex.A2 the defendant and the witnesses had signed in his presence and also accepting one another crucial aspect that he had seen the defendant borrowing the amount and signing the mortgage deed and the mortgage deed was also first written between 11.00 a.m., and 12.00 noon, the signatures were obtained first in the mortgage deed and thereafter in the partition deed, Ex.A5, the trial Court dispelled the doubt created by the appellant/defendant. Finally, when the trial Court has also gone into one another part of the crucial evidence that after writing the mortgage deed, first the same was read over and explained to the defendant and thereafter her signature was obtained in the presence of the witnesses, it clearly shows that the contentions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant before this Court that she being an illiterate woman, a fraud was played by getting her signature on the mortgage deed and that on the very same date, the partition deed was prepared and registered, are far from acceptance. Moreover, the findings of the trial Court have also been rightly upheld by the first appellate Court also. 4. In view of the aforesaid three reasons, namely, (i) on the basis of the admission made by the appellant/defendant acknowledging her signature in the registered mortgage deed, Ex.A2 as that of hers; (ii) on the basis of the evidence adduced by P.W.3, the attestor of the mortgage deed and (iii) on the basis of the evidence adduced by P.W.4, the scribe, both, having come to the witness box, had consistently and repeatedly deposed that the appellant/defendant only had executed the mortgage deed, Ex.A1 after receiving the loan, this Court is not inclined to substitute its findings. Therefore, this Court, finding no merits or substance whatsoever in the second appeal, is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.