Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for STATE OF HARYANA VS NAVIR SINGH...
STATE OF HARYANA VS NAVIR SINGH - 2013 7 Supreme 257 : Not every written equitable mortgage requires registration. A simple memorandum merely stating or witnessing the deposit of title deeds (without other terms of the mortgage) is not an instrument creating or extinguishing any right or interest in immovable property and is therefore not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, if a memorandum contains not only the deposit of title deeds but also other terms and conditions of the mortgage, it constitutes an instrument creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property and is compulsorily registrable. Thus, only equitable mortgages with additional terms beyond mere deposit are required to be registered.Checking relevance for Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. VS Central Bank Of India...
Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. VS Central Bank Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 367 : Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a charge (which includes equitable mortgages) does not require registration under Section 59 of the Act, 1882. The Supreme Court in M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons (1969) 1 SCC 573 held that a charge may be created without any writing and there is no provision of law requiring such an instrument to be attested or registered. The Court further noted that requiring registration for a charge under Section 100 would render the requirement of notice to subsequent transferees under Section 100 otiose, as registration would automatically provide notice. Therefore, an equitable mortgage does not require registration.Checking relevance for Deb Dutta Seal VS Ramanlal Phumra...
Checking relevance for SIR HARI SANKAR PAUL, K. T. VS KEDAR NATH SAHA, SINCE DECEASED (NOW REPRESENTED BY SRIMATI JOGEMAYA DASSI...
SIR HARI SANKAR PAUL, K. T. VS KEDAR NATH SAHA, SINCE DECEASED (NOW REPRESENTED BY SRIMATI JOGEMAYA DASSI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 24 : A written equitable mortgage requires registration if it is an operative instrument that purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, as required by Section 17, sub-section 1(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. In this case, the memorandum of agreement dated August 2, 1924, was held to require registration because it was not merely a record of a completed transaction but an operative instrument that created a mortgage by expressly agreeing that title-deeds would be held as security, setting out terms of the loan, and conferring a power of sale. The Judicial Committee held that such a document, even if related to a deposit of title-deeds, must be registered if it constitutes the agreement between the parties and operates to create an interest in immovable property.Checking relevance for SUBRAMONIAN VS LUTCHMAN...
SUBRAMONIAN VS LUTCHMAN - 1922 0 Supreme(SC) 73 : The judgment explicitly addresses the requirement for registration of written equitable mortgages. It states that where a deposit of title deeds is accompanied by a written bargain, that written document constitutes the contract and must be registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The court held that the memorandum of July 15, 1908, which accompanied the deposit of title deeds, was not merely a record of a completed transaction but constituted the written bargain between the parties, and therefore required registration. The court concluded that because the memorandum was unregistered, it could not be admitted in evidence, and thus the equitable mortgage could not be enforced. This establishes that a written equitable mortgage, when created by a written agreement accompanying the deposit, does require registration to be enforceable.Checking relevance for State Bank of India, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager VS Thilagavathi Traders, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. K. Pounraj...
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager VS Thilagavathi Traders, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. K. Pounraj - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3926 : Section 17(1)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that instruments evidencing an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds must be registered. The court held that the Agreement to Create Equitable Mortgage was not registered and therefore could not be considered a valid instrument creating a charge in favor of the bank. This establishes that any written equitable mortgage, as an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds, requires registration to be valid and enforceable.
