JUDGMENT : S. SRIMATHY, J. 1. The present First Appeal is filed by defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. The plaintiff is the respondent herein and the defendants are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit. 3. The suit is filed for recovery of money in O.S.No.34 of 2009, and the suit was allowed as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants/appellants herein have filed the present appeal suit. 4. The brief facts as stated by the plaintiff is that the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for some family expenses on 13.09.2006 and executed registered mortgage deed, dated 13.09.2006, in respect of their land in Survey No.267/1 admeasuring 4 acres 22 cents, situated at Kuchanoor Village. On the same date i.e. 13.09.2006 again Rs.4,40,000/- was given as secured loan by executing promissory note. On the next date i.e. on 14.09.2006 again Rs.4,40,000/- was given as secured loan by executing promissory note. And the accepted rate of interest is Rs.1/- for Rs.100/- rupees per month. The above said amount covered under the promissory note was not repaid and the interest was also not paid. Hence, the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.11,95,623.20/- for the two promissory notes with agreed rate of interest was filed by the plaintiff. 5. The 1 st defendant represented by the Power Agent, Abdul Hameed, had filed written statement wherein it is stated that she is aged about 68 years and having health issues. The 2 nd defendant is the 1 st son of the 1 st defendant. Apart from the admitted facts and the other contents stated in the plaint are vehemently denied as false. The plaintiff had filed as if the 1 st defendant had obtained loan from the plaintiff and the same is false. The 1 st defendant is married to one Abdul Rahman who are blessed with four daughters, namely Sakkeena Parveen, Fathima Parveen, Sagitha Jawahar and Mathina Munawar and two sons namely, Mohammed Feroze Khan Noon and Beer Mohammed Jeilani. The plaintiff had filed as if the 1 st defendant had obtained loan from the plaintiff and the same is false. The 1 st defendant is married to one Abdul Rahman who are blessed with four daughters, namely Sakkeena Parveen, Fathima Parveen, Sagitha Jawahar and Mathina Munawar and two sons namely, Mohammed Feroze Khan Noon and Beer Mohammed Jeilani. After the demise of the 1 st defendant’s husband, the 1 st defendant and their 6 children are the legal heirs to the deceased Abdul Rahman. All the legal heirs are entitled to share in the suit property as per Muslim Law. The 2 nd defendant had transferred his share to his wife and two minor children. The plaintiff had filed a false case against the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant had not borrowed any money for interest as alleged by the plaintiff, the claim in the suit is false, hence, the 1 st defendant is not liable to pay any money to the plaintiff. The property shown in the plaint is an agricultural land which was purchased by the deceased husband from his own income, thereafter was in possession and enjoyment by paying kist etc. After his demise, the 1 st defendant and the other legal heirs are depended on the income derived through the agriculture activities in the said land. The above property is valued as Rs.15,00,000/-. The 2 nd defendant was doing some business, but had incurred loss and the same is known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also well aware that the property belongs to all legal heirs and also the plaintiff is aware that the 2 nd defendant is not having right over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff cannot attach the suit property. The plaintiff has concealed the true facts and filed the present suit and he is trying to take over the suit property illegally by stating false facts. The suit property is an agricultural land. The plaintiff in order to create loss and mental agony had filed the present suit by false averments. There is no cause of action. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The suit property is an agricultural land. The plaintiff in order to create loss and mental agony had filed the present suit by false averments. There is no cause of action. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The 2 nd defendant had filed written statement wherein it is stated that the plaint is filed with false averments, the plaintiff had filed the suit to unjustly enrich himself and in order to give unnecessary trouble and expenses the suit is filed. All the averments and allegations contained in the plaint are denied, if not expressly admitted. The 1 st defendant is the mother of the 2 nd defendant and the 1 st defendant is having six children, all six children and the 1 st defendant are having equal share. The 2 nd defendant’s share was already gifted (Hiba) in the year 2005 to the 2 nd defendant’s wife and two minor children as per Muslim Law, hence the 2 nd plaintiff is not having any right over the suit property. The 2 nd defendant had incurred huge loss in the business, in such circumstances the plaintiff is claiming that the 2 nd defendant is liable to pay, for which the property is attached are all to give trouble to the 2 nd defendant. The 2 nd defendant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant never borrowed any amount for interest. The plaintiff had filed false case against the defendants and his family. In order to usurp the suit property, the present false case is filed. The claim of the plaintiff that the 2 nd defendant ought to pay the amount for which the 2 nd defendant had executed two promissory notes is false and the same is denied. The allegation the 2 nd defendant given promissory note is denied by the 2 nd defendant as false. The plaintiff and the 1 st defendant had written a ‘varthamana letter’ on 14.09.2009 regarding the suit property and the 2 nd defendant had not given any document for the same. The plaintiff had created the documents fraudulently in order to cheat the defendants to gain monetary benefit, thereby abuse the Court. The plaintiff and the 1 st defendant had written a ‘varthamana letter’ on 14.09.2009 regarding the suit property and the 2 nd defendant had not given any document for the same. The plaintiff had created the documents fraudulently in order to cheat the defendants to gain monetary benefit, thereby abuse the Court. The plaintiff had paid incorrect Court fees, suit is barred by limitation, based on the lies the present suit is filed in order to grab money from the defendants, the plaintiff had stated false facts before the court and hence he is not entitled to any relief and hence prayed to dismiss the suit. 7. The plaintiff had marked the two promissory notes as Ex.A1 and A2 and two witness PW1 and PW2 had deposed for plaintiff. The defendants had not marked any document and 2 nd defendant had appeared as witness. The Trial Court had formulated the following issues: (i) Whether the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- on 04.09.2006 based on the Ex.A1 Promissory Note? (ii) Whether the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- on04.09.2006, based on the Ex.A2 Promissory Note? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to said amount with the future interest? 8. After hearing the rival claims, the suit was allowed, directing the defendants to pay Rs.11,95,623.20 paise and 6% interest for the principal amount of Rs.8,80,000/- as future rate of interest. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal Suit is filed by the defendants before this Court. The defendants / appellants herein had raised various grounds challenging the impugned judgement. 9. The points for consideration in the present Appeal Suit are as follows: i. Whether plaintiff had proved the execution of the said promissory notes for the alleged transaction? ii. Whether the contract between the parties was modified subsequently? In such circumstances whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of money based on the said promissory note iii. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to? 10. The plaintiff had filed C.M.P.(MD)No.9825 of 2024 with the prayer to accept the additional documents consisting of sale agreement dated 20.10.2008, affidavit filed by the defendant in the suit in I.A.No.44 of 2013 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 and encumbrance certificate. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to? 10. The plaintiff had filed C.M.P.(MD)No.9825 of 2024 with the prayer to accept the additional documents consisting of sale agreement dated 20.10.2008, affidavit filed by the defendant in the suit in I.A.No.44 of 2013 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 and encumbrance certificate. The defendants had filed C.M.P.(MD)No.1666 of 2024 with the prayer to accept the additional documents consisting of certified copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Court, Periyakulam (this suit is filed by the plaintiff herein for specific performance), certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.33 of 2013, certified copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.40 of 2015 (this suit is filed by the defendants herein for bare injunction) and certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.40 of2015. The aforesaid documents throw light on the entire transaction between the parties and the same is necessary and hence, both C.M.P.(MD)No.9825 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1666 of 2024 are allowed and the documents are marked as follows: Plaintiff’s side additional documents: i. Sale agreement dated 20.10.2008 as Ex.A3, ii. Affidavit filed by the defendant in I.A.No.44 of 2013 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 as Ex.A4 iii. Encumbrance certificate as Ex.A5 Defendant’s side documents: i. Certified copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Court, Periyakulam (this suit is filed by the plaintiff herein for specific performance) as Ex.B1 ii. Certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.33 of 2013 as Ex.B2 iii. Certified copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.40 of 2015 (this suit is filed by the defendants herein for bare injunction) as Ex.B3 iv. Certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.40 of 2015 as Ex.B4 11. The plaintiff submitted that he had given loan for Rs.2,00,000/- on13.09.2006 and had executed registered mortgage deed dated 13.09.2006 for the same and this fact is admitted by the defendants also. Therefore, the same is not in dispute between the parties. 12. However, the contention of the plaintiff is that on the same date i.e. on 13.09.2006 he had paid Rs.4,40,000/- for which 1 st promissory note was executed. On the next date i.e. on 14.09.2006 another payment of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid for which 2 nd promissory note was executed. Therefore, the same is not in dispute between the parties. 12. However, the contention of the plaintiff is that on the same date i.e. on 13.09.2006 he had paid Rs.4,40,000/- for which 1 st promissory note was executed. On the next date i.e. on 14.09.2006 another payment of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid for which 2 nd promissory note was executed. However, initially the defendants deny the very execution of the alleged promissory note, but had stated in the I.A.No.44 of 2013 that they deny the alleged execution of the promissory note as a simple money transaction and also denied the same was executed for the alleged rate of interest. The contention of the defendant is that the said amount of Rs.8,80,000/- was paid based on the “varthamana letter” for the “othi” transaction. In the said varthamana letter it was agreed that for the interest to the total amount of 10,80,000/-, the plaintiff was permitted to pluck the coconuts from the suit property for the period of three years. Further it was agreed that the possession of the suit property shall be handed over to the plaintiff for the said period of three years and the plaintiff shall protect and maintain the property, also carry on the repair works of the irrigation pipelines etc. After the period of three years i.e. on 13.09.2009, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.10,80,000/- and on receipt of the same the plaintiff shall hand over the possession of the land along with the original mortgage deed, promissory notes and the varthamana letter to the defendants. From the date of varthamana letter dated 13.09.2006 neither the defendant is not liable to pay any interest for the mortgage loan and promissory note amount nor the plaintiff is not liable to pay any lease amount, since the plaintiff is entitled to the produce of coconuts in lieu of interest to the said amount. And both the parties are having a copy of the ‘othi varthanama letter’. The contents stated in the said othi varthanam letter was extracted in I.A.No.44 of 2013 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 marked herein as Ex.A4. and the said contents are extracted hereunder: 13. And both the parties are having a copy of the ‘othi varthanama letter’. The contents stated in the said othi varthanam letter was extracted in I.A.No.44 of 2013 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 marked herein as Ex.A4. and the said contents are extracted hereunder: 13. The defendants further stated that the said othi contract was in existence until 13.09.2009, but in the meantime the plaintiff had falsely created the alleged sale agreement dated 20.10.2008 as if the same was entered between the parties, which is marked herein as Ex.A3. As per the contents in the sale agreement, it is stated that the defendants had agreed to sell the property and the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.25,20,000/- and an advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the defendants. Further the earlier loan amount of Rs. 11,31,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.9,31,000/-) paid on 13.09.2006 based on the said varthamana letter was also considered as advance amount paid to the defendants. Hence totally Rs.13,31,000/- was paid to the defendants and the balance amount of Rs.11,80,000/- was payable to the defendants as per the sale agreement. The contents of the said sale agreement marked herein as Ex.A3 are extracted hereunder: 14. The defendants had relied on the contents of the plaint filed by the plaintiff herein in another suit in O.S.No.33 of 2013 marked herein as Ex.B1, wherein the plaintiff herein had categorically admitted that the unregistered mortgage document was executed for Rs.9,31,000/- and also stated that in lieu of interest the plaintiff was permitted to pluck the coconuts and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: 15. From the othi varthamana letter extracted in Ex.A4 affidavit, it is evident that the said promissory note was executed for the security purpose alone and there is no separate money transaction as alleged by the plaintiff. The contract and the transaction between that the parties are othi only, wherein the plaintiff had paid Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.8,80,000/- on 13.09.2006 and 14.09.2006 for which the possession of suit land was handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was permitted to pluck the coconuts for three years in lieu of the interest. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff had not come out with clean hands and had not stated the entire transaction between the parties in the plaint. 16. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff had not come out with clean hands and had not stated the entire transaction between the parties in the plaint. 16. A feeble attempt was made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff to drive a point that the promissory note was executed entirely on different transaction. The same cannot be true, since even as per the plaintiff the plaintiff had paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.09.2006 and mortgage was executed. Then Rs.8,80,000/- (Rs.4,40,000/- + Rs.4,40,000/-) was paid on 13.09.2006 and on 14.09.2005 based on Othi Varthamana Letter (however the plaintiff is claiming Rs.9,31,000/- by adding interest to the aforesaid two amounts), then Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on the date of sale agreement i.e. on 20.10.2008, then Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 30.03.2009 (Rs.50,000/- cheque and Rs.50,000/- cash) for medical expenses of the 1 st defendant totally 13,80,000/- paid. Even according to the plaintiff as per the plaint filed in O.S.No.33 of 2014 (this is another suit filed by plaintiff for specific performance), based on the aforesaid payments the balance Rs.10,89,000/- is payable by the plaintiff to conclude the sale. If the plaintiff’s claim that the promissory note transaction is separate and different transaction is accepted, then the plaintiff would have claimed and stated that he had paid almost the entire amount as per the sale agreement if the promissory note amount is taken for the balance sale consideration. And only meager amount of Rs.2,09,000/- is payable. But the plaintiff had claimed in O.S.No.33 of 2014 that the balance of Rs.10,89,000- is payable by the plaintiff to complete the sale. From this it is evident that the promissory note amount is not a separate transaction. The point can be analyzed in another angle. If the plaintiff’s claim is allowed based on the promissory note along with interest, then permission to take the coconut produce from the land in lieu of the interest would become unjust enrichment by the plaintiff. Infact the plaintiff had admitted in the O.S.No.33 of 2014 that the suit property is still in the possession of the plaintiff and in such case the plaintiff is still taking the coconut produce from the land (but on a later date the defendant through an injunction order had taken possession of the land). Infact the plaintiff had admitted in the O.S.No.33 of 2014 that the suit property is still in the possession of the plaintiff and in such case the plaintiff is still taking the coconut produce from the land (but on a later date the defendant through an injunction order had taken possession of the land). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the transaction between the parties is Othi and the claim of the plaintiff that the promissory note is separate and independent transaction is false. 17. In the affidavit filed in I.A.No.44 of 2013, the defendant had narrated the sequences of events and the change in the terms of contract between the parties. And had stated that the promissory note was executed by the defendants only for the purpose of security. The Trial Court had taken the part of the affidavit and had held since the defendants had admitted the execution of the promissory note, hence suit promissory note is true and the defendants are liable to pay the amount. But the Trial Court failed to consider the complex contract and the complexity of the terms of the contract between the parties. If the complexity of terms of contract is taken into account, then it would be evident that the suit promissory note was executed for security purpose only and the true transaction is Othi. 18. Further when the promissory note was dealt in the “othi varthamana letter’ and the parties have agreed that the said amount of Rs.8,80,000/- along with Rs.2,00,000/- shall be loan amount, for which interest is not payable by the defendant and lease amount is not payable by the plaintiff and in lieu of interest the plaintiff is granted possession and to take the coconut produce. From the above terms of contract, it is evident that the promissory note has merged with the contract in “Othi Varthamana Letter”. In other words, the promissory note cannot stand independently, when the terms of contract in “Othi Varthaman Letter” states that “after repayment of the loan of Rs.10,80,000/- the plaintiff should hand over the loan documents, promissory notes and othi varathamana letter”. Infact the promissory note had merged with the othi varathamana letter and new terms of contract is in othi varathamana letter, hence the othi varathamana letter alone will prevail. Infact the promissory note had merged with the othi varathamana letter and new terms of contract is in othi varathamana letter, hence the othi varathamana letter alone will prevail. The above proposition is supported under Section 62 of Indian Contract Act,1872 wherein the provision states the contract between the parties is substituted by new terms of contract, then the old contract becomes inexecutable.The said provision is culled out hereunder: “S. 62. Effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract.–If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed.” Hence, the promissory note was old contract, which is substituted by new contract under “Othi Varthamana Letter” and the old contract under promissory note need not be performed and it becomes inexecutable. 19. Further, the said “Othi Varthamana Letter” was substituted by sale agreement, hence the old “Othi Varthamana Letter” becomes inexecutable. If that is so under section 62 the plaintiff cannot rely on the old contract under promissory note and / or the ‘Othi Varthanmana Letter” and seek any relief, since the contract between parties had changed from promissory note to “Othi Varthamana Letter”, then again it is changed to Sale Agreement. Now only the Sale Agreement alone would prevail. 20. Based on the discussions the first point of consideration whether plaintiff had proved the execution of the said promissory notes for the alleged transaction, is answered that the promissory note was executed for security purpose alone and the real transaction between the parties is Othi transaction. Also, the suit promissory notes are not executed as independent money transaction and hence the suit filed as such cannot be entertained since the same is hit under section 62 of Indian Contract Act. As far as the second point for consideration that whether the contract between the parties was modified subsequently, in such circumstances, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of money based on the said promissory note is concerned this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit promissory note was old contract, which is substituted by new contract under “Othi Varthamana Letter” and the old contract under promissory note becomes inexecutable. Further the said “Othi Varthamana Letter” was substituted by sale agreement, hence the old “Othi Varthamana Letter” becomes inexecutable. Further the said “Othi Varthamana Letter” was substituted by sale agreement, hence the old “Othi Varthamana Letter” becomes inexecutable. Hence under section 62 the plaintiff cannot rely on the old contract under promissory note and / or the ‘Othi Varthanmana Letter” and seek any relief, since the contract between parties had changed from promissory note to “Othi Varthamana Letter”, then again it is changed to Sale Agreement and now only the Sale Agreement alone would prevail. Already the plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.No.33 of 2013 for specific performance and the suit ought to be contested as per law. 21. However it is stated that the said suit was left for dismiss for default and now petition had been filed to restore the same. But it was brought to the notice of this Court that the said suit is filed on 17.07.2013 and the sale agreement is on 20.10.2008, then the suit ought to have been filed on or before 19.10.2011, then the suit which is filed on 17.07.2013 is barred by limitation. Even it is agreed that the parties had entered into extension of sale agreement dated 20.07.2009, which the defendants deny, then also the suit is barred by limitation since the suit ought to have been filed on or before 19.07.2012, but the suit was filed on 17.07.2013, hence the suit is barred by limitation. 22. Infact the plaintiff is aware of the limitation period for both the promissory note and sale agreement, which is evident from the averments stated in suit filed for specific performance. And the relevant paragraph is culled out hereunder: From the above it is evident that the defendants were forced to execute sale agreement, hence when the time had come for extension of period, the defendants had had refused to execute any extension agreement. According to defendants the alleged extension agreement dated 20.07.2009 itself is false and created. When the defendants failed to execute extension of time of sale agreement, left with no option the plaintiff had filed the suit to recover money under promissory note. Hence the aforesaid facts would indicate either the plaintiff is entitled to the loan amount or to the relief of specific performance. Since the limitation period is over as stated supra, then the plaintiff is entitled to only return of loan amount. 23. Now comes the interest portion for the said loan transaction. Hence the aforesaid facts would indicate either the plaintiff is entitled to the loan amount or to the relief of specific performance. Since the limitation period is over as stated supra, then the plaintiff is entitled to only return of loan amount. 23. Now comes the interest portion for the said loan transaction. In the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2015 (in this suit the plaintiff herein is the defendant in the said suit) had specifically pleaded that the for the said loan transaction plaintiff is not liable to pay any lease amount and the defendant is not liable to pay any interest for the said loan transaction, in lieu of the same the plaintiffs are entitled to pluck the cultivated coconuts in the suit property. Further, the plaintiff had also stated that he and his brother Ansari are in possession of the suit land for the loan, the possession was handed over from 13.09.2006 and in lieu of the interest, the plaintiff was permitted to take the agricultural produce. (However, subsequently the possession is with the defendants based on an injunction order). But the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the agricultural produce yielding was not profitable. Further the defendants had agreed to sell the property, hence the plaintiff was under the impression that the land would balance the profits. After hearing the arguments regarding interest, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to interest for the said loan amount since in cultivation of agricultural produce always ups and downs happens. Instead of calculating whether the profits could balance the interest portion, this Court fixes the rate of interest as 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 7.5% interest for the period from 13.09.2006 the date of loan till the date of this judgment i.e. 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff is entitled to 6 % interest from 14.11.2024 until the date of payment. 24. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the defendants / appellants to pay the loan amount of Rs.10,80,000/- with 7.5% per interest per annum for the period from13.09.2006 the date of loan till the date of this judgment 13.11.2024, thereafter 6% interest from 14.11.2024 till date of actual payment. 24. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the defendants / appellants to pay the loan amount of Rs.10,80,000/- with 7.5% per interest per annum for the period from13.09.2006 the date of loan till the date of this judgment 13.11.2024, thereafter 6% interest from 14.11.2024 till date of actual payment. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On receipt of such payment the plaintiff is directed to hand over the suit promissory notes to the defendants, cancel the mortgage deed, cancel the varthamana letter and cancel the sale agreement. The judgment and decree passed in the Judgement and Decree, dated 13.08.2019, passed in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam is modified as stated supra. No costs. The C.M.P.(MD)No.9825 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1666 of 2024 are allowed and C.M.P.(MD)No.3873 of 2022 is closed.