SRINIVASAN, J.

1. The only question in this Appeal is whether there is valid equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, which is the Appellant. There is no dispute that the title deeds relating to the suit properties were deposited with the plaintiff on 16.10.1975 with an intent to create a security for the loans obtained by the defendants from the plaintiff. The contention put forward by the defendants in the course of evidence is that the deposit was made in Kovilpatti and not in Tirunelveli and therefore, there could not be any equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Kovilpatti is not one or the notified towns. Such a contention was not put forward in the written statement. The trial court has rightly disbelieved the case advanced by the defendants in the evidence. The plaintiffs evidence clearly proves that the deposit of title deeds was made at Tirunelveli, which is one of the notified towns. Hence, there was deposit of title deeds with a view to create an equitable mortgage.

2. It is then contended that the two letters which evidence the deposit of title deeds require registration and as they are not registered, there is no valid equitable mortgage which ca