1 Second respondent is a limited company, of course, owned by the Government and the first respondent is an officer. The company is engaged in the conduct of chitties and business of finance. The petitioner subscribed to one among the chitties conducted by the second respondent on the basis of "variyola". The chitty amount shall be distributed to the petitioner on reasonable security. This is a contract statutorily entered into in terms of the chitty variyola by the subscriber, the petitioner and the foreman, the first respondent. It is an admitted fact that the chitty had been prized in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the respondents are liable to pay the prize amount on the petitioner providing reasonable security for ensuring payment of the future subscription of the chitty. The petitioner intended to provide security of his immovable property. To show that he owns the property, he produced a certified copy of the title deed. The title deed in original was not produced. The certified copy of the title deed is not accepted as a reasonable security by the respondents. So, the prize amount is not disbursed. The petitioner showed preparedness for equitable mortgage of the proper