K.M. Joseph, J.

Appellants are the defendants in a Suit for realisation of money. The Suit stands decreed in a sum of Rs.6,12,803.75 and interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,59,000/= at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the secondplaintiff was allowed to recover from the plaint schedule property charged on them by sale of them for a sum of Rs.87,700/= and interest on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/= at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the third plaintiff was allowed to recover from the plaint schedule property charged on them and by sale of them for a sum of Rs.27,406.25 and interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/= at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the plaintiffs were further allowed to recover personally from the first defendant the plaint amount with future interest at 11 per cent from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

2. The first plaintiff (since died) was the mother of one late M. Ramachandran Nair. The second plaintiff was the wife of late M. Ramachandran Nair and the third plaintiff was the daughter of M. Ramachandran Nair. It is their case that late M. Ramachandran Nair and plaintiffs 2 and 3 had plenty of money. The first appellant was running a money lending business. The first defendant and late M. Ramachandran Nair were acquainted with each other and on the said basis, the first defendant became acquainted with plaintiffs 2 and 3 also.The first appellant approached late M. Ramachandran Nair and second and third plaintiffs for loans to develop his business of money lending. They loaned Rs.40,000/=, Rs.45,000/= and Rs.15,000/= respectively on 17.4.1983. Apart from promissory notes, the first appellant deposited the original title deeds of the properties. Subsequently, it is not in dispute, from 3.4.1986 till 7.10.1989, the first appellant borrowed various sums from late M. Ramachandran Nair and plaintiffs 2 and

3. According to the plaintiffs, it was orally agreed between the parties that the title deeds deposited with late M. Ramachandran Nair and second and third plaintiffs would be retained by them as evidence of equitable mortgage on the schedule properties and no separate memorandum would be taken on each occasion. Since there was no repayment of the loans taken from 3.4.1986 to 7.10.1989, the Suit came to be filed for recovery of the unpaid amounts by sale of the mortgaged properties.

3. The appellants, inter alia, set up the plea of limitation. It was further contended that here was no mortgage. The trial court found that the Suit is not barred on the basis that there was valid mortgage created by deposit of title deeds and decreed the Suit as aforesaid.

4. We heard Shri O. Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellants as also Shri T.S. Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

5. Shri O. Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the trial court has erred in not finding that there was no mortgage by deposit of title deeds. He would contend that the Suit was barred except in respect of a few transactions. There is no dispute that the title deeds of the properties which had been deposited with late M. Ramachandran Nair and plaintiffs 2 and 3, when the loan amounting to Rs.1 Lakh was taken, continued to remain with them. He would point out that the court below overlooked the fact that admittedly the said amount was repaid by the first defendant in the year 1986 and the Suit was laid for recovery of the amounts which were taken as loans by the first appellant from 3.4.1986 onwards till 7.10.1989. He posed the question as to how it could be found that there was a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the loans availed from 3.4.1986 till 7.10.1989. He would submit that the mere possession of the documents of title with late M. Ramachandran Nair and plaintiffs 2 and 3 would not lead to the creation of a valid