Title deeds to be treated as by way of collateral security for the payment of loan amount.

Defendants 1 and 2 in C. S. No. 551 of 1983 on the file of this Court are the appellants herein.

2. The suit filed by respondents was one for recovery of money by sale of mortgage properties.

3. It is the case of plaintiffs that as per Exs. P3 to P15 Promissory notes, defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- agreeing to pay the same with 21% interest. As collateral security, properties belonging to first defendant was also mortgaged by deposit of title deeds. It is their further case that even though defendants agreed to discharge the entire debt within a period of 180 days, they could not settle the transaction. A reply was sent as per Ex. P2 wherein they disputed the allegation that there is deposit of title deeds with an intention to create mortgage and it is also contended that P. W. 1 Shantilal Bhayani obtained signatures only in blank papers, blank stamp papers etc. and it is further contended that with the plaintiffs they have no money transaction.

4. The suit was therefore allowed for realisation of Rs. 8,97,160/- with future interest and costs by sale of mortgaged properties and in case the proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the claim, a personal decree against defendants.

5. In the Written Statement filed by the appellants they pleaded that in the year 1969, second defendant produced a Hindi movie by name Subash Gangaram and on 1-5-1971, P.W. 1, who is the husband of first plaintiff entered into an agreement with the second defendant to take on lease the distribution rights over the territory of east Punjab. It is said that this is the only transaction which defendants have entered with PW 1 and they have no other transaction. The allegation in the plaint that Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are acting as agents of Plaintiffs 5 to 12 is also denied.

6. On the above pleadings, learned Judge raised seven issues. On issue No. 2, learned Judge found that the defendants have executed Exs. P3 to P15 Promissory notes and the same are subject to consideration. On issue Nos. 4 and 5, learned Judge further found that defendants have deposited the title deeds to plaintiffs and valid executable mortgage has been created. The contention that Ex. P 16 i.e., Memorandum of deposit of title deeds require registration was also found against.

7. Learned Judge also found that plaintiffs 1 to 4 have only agreed to make arrangements to raise a loan of Rs. 2,55,000/- and therefore they were acting as agents of Plaintiffs 5 to 12. An equitable mortgage was also taken by Plaintiffs 1 to 4 for themselves and on behalf of Plaintiffs 5 to 12. Learned Judge also found that plaintiffs are entitled to claim 21% interest. The contention that plaintiffs 5 to 12 are entitled only to money claimed and are not entitled to bring the property for sale was also repelled. Consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for with costs. Two months time was given to defendants to discharge the entire debt.

8. In this appeal, learned counsel for appellants put forward the following submissions. Firstly, there is no dealing with any of the plaintiffs and the learned Judge should have dismissed the suit. An alternate argument has been taken by the learned counsel that in case it is found that there is money transaction, on the basis of Ex. P 16, decree should not have been granted for sale of the properties. The argument of the counsel was Ex. P. 16 requires registration and therefore inadmissible in evidence. A further contention is also taken by the learned counsel that at any rate even if Ex. P. 16 is admissible, it is addressed to Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and they alone can bring the properties for sale for the amounts due to them. As against plaintiffs 5 to 12, suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Finally, further contention is also taken that interest of 21% is excessive and the learned Judge should have exercised his discretion in awarding lesser rate of interest at least from the date of suit.

9. As against the said contention raised by the learned counsel for appe