The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of written documents in establishing the terms of an equitable mortgage and the limitations on proving the terms of a mortgage through other evidence.

Ramesam, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs and the memorandum of objections by the defendants (respondents 1, 3 4 and 5) arise out of a suit filed in the subordinate Judges Court of Bezwada So recover about Rs. 40,000 on the basis of an equitable mortgage.

2. Defendants 1 to 4 are the heirs and executors of one Uppaluri Venkatarama Seshayya who borrowed the suit amount, defendant 1 being the son, defendant 2 being the widow and defendants 3 and 4 being the executors under the will. Defendant 5 is the subsequent mortgagee and purchaser of some of the properties. Defendants 6 to 8 are legatees of some of the properties under the same will, defendant 8 being the same person as the third but impleaded as legatee. Plaintiff 1 is the widow and plaintiff 2 is the son of the original creditor Venkataramayya. Venkataramayya was originally a native of the Kistna. District, but latterly he was residing at Madras and was carrying on money lending business and was occasionally going to the Kistna District. On one such occasion the debtor Venkatarama Seshayya handed over a letter, Ex. C, dated 26th May 1917, giving a list of his properties worth about Rs. 1,50,000; and a list of the debts due by him amounting to about Rs. 40,000. The letter says that he intended to take a loan from Venkataramayya and that the information in the letter was given so that he " may not entertain any doubt," thereby meaning any doubt of the debtors solvency. But the letter makes no mention about any deposit of title-deeds or of any mortgage. On 28th May, Rs. 9,000 were borrowed under a promissory note, Ex. A, and the payees of the note were Venkataramayya and his wife, plaintiff 1, or either or survivor. On 14th June, Rs 5,000 were borrowed under another note, Ex. B, payable to the same persons. These two notes were executed at Masulipatnam. On 27th October Venkatarama Seshayya went to Madras and there borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 executing a promissory note, Ex. D, payable to the same persons as before. On this occasion;he also executed Ex. F which is headed:

List of documents belonging to Wuppulooru Laksmi Narayana Pantulu Garu, son of Ramayya Garu.

3. This Laksmi Narayana was the father of Venkatarama Seshayya. At the end of the list we have got this sentence: " These documents are given as security for the debts I owe you" and it is then signed by W. V. Ramaseshayya at Madras. Under Section 59, T. P. Act, an equitable mortgage can be created without any registered instrument by the mere deposit of the title-deeds in certain towns of India one of which is Madras, but not in the mofussil of the Madras Presidency. The title-deeds handed over on 27th October were obviously so handed over with a view to create an equitable mortgage. On 10th November 1917, a further sum of Rs. 5,000 was borrowed on another promissory note, Ex. G, and on the same day Exs A and B were renewed by Ex. H for Rs. 14,700, the amount of Rs. 700 representing the interest. The present suit is brought to recover the sums due on the above notes.

4. The Subordinate Judge of Bezwada held that all the suit notes were genuine, that Ex. F did not require registration and was, therefore, admissible in evidence, that there was a valid equitable mortgage for the sum of Rs. 10,000 borrowed under Ex. D, but there was no equitable mortgage for the Rs. 5,000 borrowed under Ex. G or for the sum of Rs. 14,000 due under Ex. H. He also found against the plea of part payment of Rs. 4,000 by the defendants. He accordingly passed a sale decree in respect of Ex. D and a mare money decree in respect of other amounts. The plaintiffs filed this appeal for the sums in respect of which a sale decree is disallowed and the respondents filed the memorandum of cross-objections in which they raised the question that Ex. F requires registration and is inadmissible and therefore there is no equitable mortgage and the plea of part payment of Rs. 4,000.

5. It will be convenient now to take up the question of the admissibi