ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 2013 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (PoA) Cases-cum-Additional District, at Nalgonda. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 56 of 2013 praying to grant decree for recovery of money of Rs. 1,21,52,000/- which includes principal amount and interest, basing on simple mortgage deed by creating charge on immovable properties and future interest. 4. Defendant is the wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, who was the Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, Ramannapet. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that Late V. Eshwara Prasad, as Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, obtained various loans on various dates totalling to an amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- and executed the Notarized Mortgage Deed on 17.04.2009 on Document No. 132/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.35 cents, Document No. 184/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.27 cents, Document No. 135/200 to an extent of Acs. 3.275 cents, Document No. 136/200 to an extent of Acs. 2.375 cents, Document No. 138/200 to an extent of Acs. 2.65 cents, Document No. 138/100 to an extent of Ac.1.95 cents, Document No. 139/2000 to an extent of Ac. 1.925 cents, Document No. 143/200 to an extent of Ac. 0.925 cents, total extent of Acs. 19.725 cents in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Plaintiff alleged that in the mortgage deed, Late V. Eshwara Prasad admitted of borrowing Rs. 62,00,000/- as loan amount from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, in spite of demand made for repayment of loan amount along with interest, Late V. Eshwara Prasad did not repay the amount. After death of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, plaintiff approached the defendant number of times requesting to either return the said amount along with interest or to register the properties covered by the mortgage deed. Since defendant has not honoured the commitments and did not repay the amount, plaintiff was compelled to institute O.S. No. 56 of 2013. 7. In the written statement, defendant totally denied the contention of the plaintiff about the borrowing of amount and executing the Notarized Mortgage Deed. 8. Since defendant has not honoured the commitments and did not repay the amount, plaintiff was compelled to institute O.S. No. 56 of 2013. 7. In the written statement, defendant totally denied the contention of the plaintiff about the borrowing of amount and executing the Notarized Mortgage Deed. 8. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant who is the wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad? (2) Whether the defendant’s late husband V. Eshwara Prasad has executed the notarized mortgage deed dated 17.04.2009 in favour of the plaintiff which is also signed by the defendant as a witness in which the defendant’s late husband V. Eshwara Prasad has admitted as he obtained various loan amounts from the plaintiff on various dates totalling to an amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum from 17.04.2009? (3) Whether the defendant also has signed on the undertakings along with her late husband V. Eshwara Prasad? (4) To what relief? 9. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. 10. The trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant, who is wife of Late V. Eshwara Prasad, holding that defendant admitted that her late husband worked as Managing Director of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited and, therefore, she is liable to pay the suit amount with simple interest. Having held so, the trial Court ordered preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed. 11. In other words, though the suit was instituted for recovery of money alleged to have been borrowed by Late V. Eshwara Prasad, the trial Court granted relief of preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed by mentioning the period of redemption as three months and further held that in case defendant failed to pay the suit amount, the plaintiff was at liberty to follow due process of law. 12. In this appeal, the preliminary contention of the defendant is that the amount was borrowed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited and the mortgage deed was also executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. 12. In this appeal, the preliminary contention of the defendant is that the amount was borrowed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited and the mortgage deed was also executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. Therefore, merely because the husband of the defendant was Managing Director, he cannot be held liable in his personal capacity and the trial Court grossly erred in converting the suit and granting relief of recovery of money or in the alternative execution of simple mortgage deed, on properties standing in the name of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. 13. Having realized that the amount was borrowed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited and the properties on which simple mortgage deed was created stood in the name of M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, two interlocutory applications are filed in this appeal. I.A. No. 1 of 2018 is filed to grant decree as a preliminary decree in the mortgage suit in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C. and I.A. No. 1 of 2019 is filed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the cause title in the plaint of O.S. No. 56 of 2013 by adding M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, represented by its whole time Director Vemulapally Seetarayamma as defendant. 14. After making elaborate submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiff sought leave of the Court to withdraw both I.As. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2018 and I.A. No. 1 of 2019 are dismissed as withdrawn. 15. As noticed above, we see merit in the contention of learned counsel for defendant. The main plank of claim by the plaintiff regarding recovery of money was that Late V. Eshwara Prasad borrowed money, executed Notarized Mortgage Deed pledging several properties, but did not repay the money nor transferred the properties shown in the mortgage deed. The entire pleadings in the plaint are only on this plank. However, on going through the mortgage deed, we noticed that the mortgage deed was executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, represented by the Managing Director and the properties pledged therein also belong to M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. Further, the mortgage deed narrates borrowing of money by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. However, on going through the mortgage deed, we noticed that the mortgage deed was executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, represented by the Managing Director and the properties pledged therein also belong to M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. Further, the mortgage deed narrates borrowing of money by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. Thus, it appears, money was not borrowed by Late V. Eshwara Prasad in his individual capacity nor plaintiff can seek to recover money by relying on mortgage deed executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited even without impleading M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited as defendant. We also noticed another lacuna in the pleadings. Mortgage deed refers to name of the Managing Director as Sri. Eshwara Vara Prasad Vemulapalli, whereas in the suit the name of husband of defendant was shown as V. Eshwara Prasad. It is not stated whether both names belong to same person. However, we are not dwelling deep into this aspect. 16. Be that as it may, when defendant denies borrowing of money by her husband in his individual capacity, which plea of the defendant is supported by the terms of alleged mortgage deed stated to have been executed by M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited, in the absence of the said company as defendant, no relief could have been granted by the trial Court. The very pleadings and prayer in the suit being grossly defective, the suit is liable to be dismissed. No liability can be fastened on defendant in her individual capacity when amount was not borrowed by her husband in his personal capacity. The defendant is entitled to succeed in the appeal on this ground alone. 17. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff be granted liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy against M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. We are not dealing with the claim of the plaintiff vis-a-vis M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited. What is noticed by us is with reference to the pleadings in the plaint and relief sought in the plaint vis-a-vis the defendant in the plaint. According to us, the suit is not maintainable against the defendant. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is allowed. We make it clear that if plaintiff is otherwise entitled to proceed against M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited in accordance with the law, this judgment does not come in the way of plaintiff availing such remedy. According to us, the suit is not maintainable against the defendant. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is allowed. We make it clear that if plaintiff is otherwise entitled to proceed against M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited in accordance with the law, this judgment does not come in the way of plaintiff availing such remedy. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.