The main legal point established in this judgment is that a memorandum of title deeds can be considered an instrument creating an equitable mortgage and should be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order passed in O. S. No. 382/89 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed on the basis of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds to realise the pronote amount. The said pronote was executed on 30-5-1983, for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-; towards security the defendant deposited the original title deeds of her property and thereby created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also executed a memorandum of title deeds on 2-6-1983. During the trial when this memorandum was sought to be marked, objection was raised on behalf of the defendant that this memorandum is a transaction of mortgage under which the title deeds were deposited towards the debt amount. Therefore it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge after considering both the sides and also the authorities cited before him came to the conclusion that it does not require any registration and the objection of the defendant was overruled as untenable.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the present Revision is filed by the defendant.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner submitted that the memorandum is the instrument through which an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds is created. The title deeds were deposited on 30-5-1983 as security. The memorandum in question was executed on 2-6-1983 i. e. , only two days after the said deposit. According to him, a plain reading of the memorandum would show that the parties intended to create equitable mortgage through this document In such a case, it will not be received in evidence unless it is registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 6 ) IN support of his contention he relied upon a bench judgment of our High court in Kakaraparthy Bhavanarayana vs. Official Receiver, Krishna representing estate of Sonti Venkataratnam, Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam and others. In the said case the memorandum read as follows:"to sri Kakaraparthi Bhavanarayana Sastrigaru, Vijayawada. Letter executed by Sonti Venkataratnam, son of Kotaiah of Bezwada. Myself and Tumu Subba Rao borrowed Rs. 13,500/- on 4-5-51 and rs. 1,800/- on 13-8-51 on two promissory notes executed by us jointly in your favour at 12 per cent compound interest. I now deposit the title deed of Sonti Venkataratnam among us relating to 1390 sq. yards of site in Municipal Ward No. 22, Revenue Ward 9, Block no. 18 T. S. No. 781-A dated 5-2-1948 as a collateral security for the payment of the money due on the two promissory notes referred to above inclusive of interest. I executed this document of security in your favour after assuring you that I never created any charge or encumbrance on the property covered by the title deed dated 5-2-48. Executed this 7th day of november 1951. (Signed) Sonti Venkataratnam 7-11-1951. "on the above recitals the Bench held:"that is how though a mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be created by mere deposit of the title deeds without any written contract between the parties but once the contract or the bargain as it is called between the parties is reduced to writing it cannot become effective unless the writing is registered". It also held in the circumstances of the case:"11. Here a deposit was made by a letter in which was mentioned why the document was deposited. There is nothing but the letter to connect the deposit with the debt. The letter does not show that it is merely evidential of something which either had already been done earlier or to be done in future. Therefore by Ex. A-7 the bargain was reduced into writing and it embodied the contract of the mortgage itself between the parties. If that is so, Ex. A-7 required registration and not having been registered it cannot be used in evidence at all and the transaction cannot also be proved by oral evidence either. Therefore the plaintiff cannot get a decree on the basis of the