John Wallis, C.J.

1. Exhibits V and VI both contain agreements about effecting an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds Similar documents have been held in England to affect land and require registration under the statute of 7 Anne relating to Middlesex in Moore v. Culverhouse (1860) 27 Beav. 639; s.c. 54 E. R. 254, Neve v. Pennel (1863) 2 H. & M. 170. Kedarnath v. Shamloll Khettry (1873) 11 B.L.R. 405 is distinguishable. The learned Judge was therefore right in holding that Exhibits V and VI required registration and were inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, even as regards the stipulation for compound interest on the equitable mortgages.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Phillips, J.

3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether Exhibits V and VI are admissible in evidence although they are not registered. Plaintiffs bad effected an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds with a third party and then arranged with the defendant to pay off this mortgagee and to mortgage the property to him. They accordingly executed two promissory notes for the mortgage amount and executed the two agreements Exhibits V and VI. These documents set out