Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal by defendant 2, the wife of defendant 1, arises out of a mortgage suit, which has been decreed by the court below.

2. Two points have been pressed, on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal first, that the deed of gift dated the 16th July, 1947, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 (Ext. B) is a real transaction, and not a sham transaction as held by the court below; and, second, that the letter (Ext. 1-c), of the 2nd February, 1948, was the real contract evidencing its terms between the plaintiff and defendant 1, and, as it is not registered no equitable mortgage was created thereunder.

3. In order to decide these two questions, it is necessary to state the material facts, having bearing on them which are as below :

4. The plaintiff is a bank which had monetary transactions with defendant 1 from before. At the request of defendant 1, he was allowed cash credit loan by way of overdraft against approved shares. As a result of the overdraft, defendant 1 executed a handnote (Ext. 2) for rupees two lakhs. On the 16th July, 1947, defendant 1 executed the impugned deed of gift in favour of his wife, defendant 2, in resp