Krishnan, J.

1. The first question that arises for our decision in this Second Appeal is whether an indorsee for value of a negotiable instrument the amount of which had been secured by a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds can claim to enforce the mortgage in the absence of a registered instrument conveying the mortgage rights to him.

2. A somewhat similar question arose before the Learned Chief Justice and my learned brother with reference to an indorsee for collection in Cunnaiya v. Gopala Chettiar (1920) 40 Mad. Law Journal 25 and was answered in the indorsees favour. That decision however, is not conclusive in this case as here we have an indorsee for value and the judgment of my learned brother in that case was based entirely on the fact that the indorsement was for collection ; and though the Learned Chief Justice makes no such distinction, my learned brother did not apparently agree with his Lordships views. Sitting with Hughes, J., the learned Chief Justice has again stated his view in Perumal Ammal v. Perumal Naicker (1920) 40 Mad. Law Jornal 25 that though the rule is now that a mortgage right or debt cannot be transferred without a registered instrument under Secti