Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiff sues upon an alleged equitable mortgage in his favour by Defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants are alienees from Defendants 1 and 2. The District Munsif gave a personal decree and declined to give a mortgage decree against the property covered by the equitable mortgage. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the equitable mortgage was not proved and that in consequence the suit was barred by limitation. The contention of Mr. Jagannadha Aiyar for the appellant is that the loans given by the plaintiffs father were covered by the deposit of title-deeds. Ex. C is a usufructuary mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of one Desikachariar for Rs. 200 on 13th July 1903. This document was deposited to cover the loan. Mr, Jagannadha Aiyars contention is that this is a title-deed. I am unable to see how a mortgage-deed executed by the owner of a property in favour of a third person can ever be deemed to be a title-deed. A mortgage deed may be evidence of the fact that the mortgagor dealt with the property as his, but in no circumstances can it be considered that a mortgage-deed is the title-deed of the mortgagor. I, ther