Mortgage by deposit of title deeds does not require registration unless the document includes enforceable terms; failure to challenge evidence results in judgment favoring the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet in O.S.No.2 of 2014, dated 07.02.2020.

2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.18,67,000/- and for preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount by granting reasonable time for redemption of mortgage plaint schedule property, in the event of failure to redeem the mortgage property in accordance with preliminary decree, to pass a final decree for sale of mortgaged immovable plaint schedule property in terms of Order 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for realization of decreetal amount with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

4. The contention of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from him on 27.12.2012 for development of her business, executed a promissory note at Vijayawada in his favour and on the same day agreed to repay the borrowed amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff has insisted for security, the defendant has provided the suit property i.e., two storied building constructed in an extent of 313 sq.yds bearing Door No.1-7-116/2/1 in Survey No.9, Ward No.9 of Suryapet Municipality within the boundaries by depositing the title deed dated 20.01.1996. The defendant has executed memorandum of deposit of title deed on 31.12.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant has failed to repay the amount.

5. Defendant filed her written statement contending that she neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor created equitable mortgage of the scheduled property. Son of the defendant by name K.Ramakrishna Reddy is doing transport business at K.P.H.B. at Hyderabad and he got acquaintance with one Narendar Chowdary. The son of the defendant requested Narendar Chowdary to advance loan for his business needs, as Narendar Chowdary had no money with him he introduced one Ravikanth to her son. Son of the defendant through Narendar Chowdary obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from Ravikanth, in turn he handed over two singed blank cheques and original registered sale deed No.88/1996 relating to the suit property. On 07.01.2013 the son of the defendant made part payment of Rs.4,12,500/- along with interest to Ravikanth and also paid remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest on 29.01.2013 to Ravikanth through Narendar Chowdary. In spite of discharging the amount by her son, Ravikanth and Narendar Chowdary did not return the singed blank cheques and original registered sale deed which were kept with him as security and postponed to return the same. In the month of September 2013, the son of the defendant received phone call from Sheelam Govind Reddy claiming an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- otherwise the matter will be moved before the Court. The defendant never approached the plaintiff, nor she visited Vijayawada at any point of time. The defendant has sufficient agricultural properties, two buildings at Suryapet town and getting rents. The son of the defendant got issued legal notice on 18.12.2013 to Ravikanth and Sheelam Govind Reddy demanding them to return the cheques and original registered sale deed belonging to the defendant, after receiving the said legal notice the present suit came to