SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Cal) 47

High Court Of Calcutta
N. C. Mukherji, B. C. Ray
SARADINDU MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
AMIYA KUMAR BASU - Respondent
AFOD 191  Of  1969
Decided On : 02/09/1977

Advocates Appeared:
AMAL KUMAR MUKHERJEE, P.N.MITTER, SAKTINATH MUKHERJI, Satya Priya Ghosh, TAPAN KUMAR MITRA

In order to constitute a mortgage, there are three requisites which are to be satisfied viz. (i) debt, (ii) deposit of title deed, and (iii) an intention that the deeds shall be security for the debt.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 57 - MORTGAGE - DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS - INTENTION TO CREATE SECURITY - PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,324 due on a mortgage, alleging that the defendants borrowed Rs. 14,200 on 16-11-57 and a further sum of Rs. 2,200 on November 10, 1958. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants deposited the deed of lease dated 2-3-46 as security for the loan of Rs. 3,650 advanced on 28-3-56 under a promissory note and also with an intent to create an equitable mortgage in favor of the plaintiff for future loans. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the title deeds were handed over to the plaintiff to help him in a Rent Execution Case.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the title deeds were deposited with the intention of creating security for all loans that will be advanced subsequent to 28-3-56. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the defendant had kept the said title deeds with the plaintiff with an intention of creating a security in respect of the property on which the lease deed was taken by the plaintiff.

Issues: 1. Whether the deposit of title deeds was made with the intention of creating a mortgage for all future loans? 2. Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant had kept the title deeds with the intention of creating a security for the loan of Rs. 14,200?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the mere deposit of title deeds with the creditor by the debtor will not constitute an equitable mortgage unless it is proved that the said title deeds had been deposited with the intention of creating a mortgage. 2. The court relied on the decision in Miller v. Babu Madho Das, where it was held that the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the title deeds in his possession after the insolvency was deposited with him as security before the adjudication of insolvency.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the court below were affirmed.

B. C. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1967 passed by Shri R. N. Patra, Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 4 of 1961 dismissing in part the plaintiff's suit with respect to the claim for Rs. 14,200 with interest thereon. The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,324 due on a mortgage stating inter alia that the defendants borrowed from him the sum of Rs. 14,200 on 16-11-57 and a further sum of Rs. 2,200 on November 10, 1958. There was a stipulation that the said sums would carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. In respect of the advance of Rs. 14,200 the defendant No. 1 drew a Hundi payable to the plaintiff on 30 days' sight without grace and it was accepted by the defendant No. 2 and as evidence of the later loan of Rs. 2,200 the defendant No. 1 gave an 'i owe you' in writing dated February 10, 1958. The Hundi was presented to the defendant No. 2 on maturity for payment but he did not make any payment. The notice of dishonour was given to each of the defendants. On March 28, 1956, the defendant No. 1 deposited with the plaintiff at 3/1, Bankshall Street the deed of lease dated 2-3-46 executed between Sm. Kumidini Ghosh and the defendant No. 1 by which the property in Schedule 'a' to the plaint has been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 750 and subsequent increments in rent for the term of 15 years with option to renew of the same for a further period of 15 years. The same was deposited with an intent to create an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 in respect of moneys advanced or to be advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was made to secure the payments of a loan made by the defendant for the sum of Rs. 3,650 from the plaintiff under a promissory note dated March 28. 1956. This amount was included in the Hundi drawn by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000. Again this sum of Rs. 5,000 has been included in the "loan for Rs. 14,200 referred to above. The said deposit of title deeds was regarded as security for loan that was made from time to time by the defendants. A sum of Rs. 17,600 and Rs. 2,716 respectively due and payable by the defendants as stated in schedule 'b' to the plaint. The defendants had not made any payment in repayment of the said loans and as such the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,324 i. e. Rs. 17,608 as principal and Rs. 2,716 as interest.

( 2 ) THE defendant No. 1, Amiya Ku-mar Basu, filed a written statement on January 8, 1962 denying the allegations made in the plaint. It has been stated that a Hundi was executed by him as alleged but the same was without consideration. It was further alleged that the said Hundi was not executed in accordance with law and it did not bear the proper stamp fee and as such no loan was created by the said Hundi. It has also been alleged that the statement made in the plaint 'i owe you' has not the effect of creating the loan or it was not intended to be an admission of the loan. It has also been stated that there was no deposition of title deeds in respect of the alleged loans. The true fact is that the document of lease dated 2-6-46 along with some share scripts of A. K. Collieries Limited was handed over to the plaintiff in order to help him in Rent Execution Case No. 4 of 1955 of the Court of the 5th Subordinate Judge at Alipore. This will be evident from the receipts granted on behalf of the plaintiff and it will falsify the story of the deposit of title deeds. It has also been stated that there was no deposit of the document with intent to create a security or an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff in support of his case that the title deeds of the land described in schedule 'a' to the plaint has been deposited with an intent to create an equitable mortgage for the loans that have been adva





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top