Sathish Ninan, J.

1. Does a memorandum of acknowledgment of mortgage executed on the very date of the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, require registration?

2. The denial of a decree as against the 2nd defendant and on the mortgage, in a suit for recovery of money due to a Bank under a loan transaction, is under challenge.

3. Defendants availed a credit facility from the plaintiff-bank on execution of necessary documents. The plaint schedule property was equitably mortgaged by the 2nd defendant to secure the facility. Since the amounts were not repaid in terms of the loan agreement, the bank instituted the suit for recovery of the amounts due. The 1st defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant contended that he is a stranger to the transaction, that he has not signed any documents nor availed any facility from the plaintiff. The creation of the mortgage was disputed.

4. The court below found that the signatures of the 2nd defendant in the loan documents Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4, A9 and A10 differs from his admitted signatures. It was also found that Ext.A9 letter acknowledging deposit of title deeds, was not registered. Accordingly it was held that the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree as against the 2nd defendant and also on the mortgage.

5. Though notice in the appeal was issued to the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent, he has not entered appearance. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The reasons given by the court below are according to us, unsustainable. To enter a finding that the signatures in the loan documents are forged, the court below has solely relied upon the comparison of the signatures by the court with the signatures of the 2nd defendant in the vakalath, written statement and admitted documents. We looked into the loan documents, viz., Exts.A1 to A4, A9 and A19. The signatures in all these documents are one and the same. Between the signatures in the said documents, there is no dissimilarity. However, the signature as seen therein is entirely different from the admitted signatures of the 2nd defendant. But that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the loan documents were not signed by the 2nd defendant. It is possible that the 2nd defendant might have signed the loan documents in a different manner. There are various circumstances, which indicate that the 2nd defendant was a party to the loan transaction. The original title deed relating to the property owned by the 2nd defendant is with the plaintiff-bank which the bank claims, has been deposited by the 2nd defendant to create mortgage as security for the facility. It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that the original title deed is lost/stolen, and the mortgage is fraudulently created.

7. It is to be noted that the 2nd defendant has not taken any steps as against the loss or theft of his title deed. He has not even lodged a complaint before the police. He has not bothered to give a paper publication. Even after he became aware that the title deed has been deposited with the bank as security, he did not take any steps. The notice issued from the plaintiff-bank to the 2nd defendant was not even replied to. The explanation given by the 2nd defendant that on receipt of the letter from the bank he personally approached the bank authorities and convinced them, cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. Though it is his case that the original title deed has been lost which has been misused, the plaintiff-bank has produced Exts.A8 and A8(a) which are two tax receipts relating to the mortgaged property, dated 20.03.1987 and 04.08.1984, respectively. The availability of Ext.A8 and A8(a) with the plaintiff, has not been explained. Added to all these, it is to be noticed that the 2nd defendant had filed an application to have the signatures examined by an expert. The documents were referred to the forensic science laboratory which returned the documents requiring deposit of Rs.2,500/- towards the fee and also requesting to m