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

1910 Supreme(Mad) 525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Venkataramayya Pantulu
Versus
V.B. Narasinga Row and Ors.
Decided On : 21.12.1910

The validity of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds depends on the deposit of documents showing the mortgagor's title to the property.

Headnote:

Mortgage by Deposit of Title-Deeds - Validity of Equitable Mortgage

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, with the 1st defendant as the mortgagor. The only document deposited was a sale-deed in the name of the 1st defendant's father. Subsequent events included a deed of gift and an arbitration award, leading to a decree in favor of the 1st defendant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mere deposit of the sale deed in the father's name did not create a valid mortgage in favor of the plaintiff. The court dismissed the appeal and the memorandum of objections due to non-payment of court fees.

Issues: Validity of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and non-payment of court fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deposit of a document showing no title in the mortgagor, without depositing documents showing his title to the property, does not create a valid equitable mortgage.

Final Decision: The appeal and memorandum of objections were dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff institutes the suit on what he calls a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. The 1st defendant is the mortgagor. The only document which is deposited with the plaintiff is a sale-deed in the name of the first defendants father, dated the 10th of May 1879. Subsequent to the sale the father executes a deed of gift, Exhibit XV, in favour of his grandsons of a deceased son. Disputes having arisen amongst the members of the family, there is a reference to arbitration and an award dated the 10th November 1896. This award is filed in court under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code and a decree, Exhibit I, passed in terms of the award whereby the grandsons are directed to deliver the properties, which are the subject of the present so-called mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, to the 1st defendant. His claim of title to the property is not impeached; it is not denied that the property purchased by Anantaya in 1879 was his self-acquisition. The plaintiff does not say that the 1st defendant has acquired the property by descent from Anantaya on his death. The decree, the award before it and Exhibit XV, the deed of gift, are none of them deposited. We cannot hold that the mere deposit of the sale deed in the fathers name is a good deposit of title-deeds of the properties by the first defendant so as to create a valid mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. T. Ethiraja Mudaliar, who appears for plaintiff-appellant before us, relies on paragraph 28 of FISHER on Mortgage. We do not think that the paragraph in question is any authority for the position that where the only document that is deposited shows no kind of title in the depositor to the property and there are documents in existence showing his title to the property which are not deposited, an equitable mortgage is validly created by the deposit of the document which shows no title in him. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.

2. As the court-fee has not been paid on the memorandum of objections, we dismiss it with costs.

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