High Courts(1910) 12 MAD CK 0022

V. Venkataramayya Pantulu vs V.B. Narasinga Row and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 December 1910 · Citation: (1911) 21 MLJ 454

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 356 words
1.

The plaintiff institutes the suit on what he calls a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. The 1st defendant is the mortgagor. The only document

which is deposited with the plaintiff is a sale-deed in the name of the first defendant''s father, dated the 10th of May 1879. Subsequent to the sale

the father executes a deed of gift, Exhibit XV, in favour of his grandsons of a deceased son. Disputes having arisen amongst the members of the

family, there is a reference to arbitration and an award dated the 10th November 1896. This award is filed in court u/s 525 of the CPC and a

decree, Exhibit I, passed in terms of the award whereby the grandsons are directed to deliver the properties, which are the subject of the present

so-called mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, to the 1st defendant. His claim of title to the property is not impeached; it is not denied that the

property purchased by Anantaya in 1879 was his self-acquisition. The plaintiff does not say that the 1st defendant has acquired the property by

descent from Anantaya on his death. The decree, the award before it and Exhibit XV, the deed of gift, are none of them deposited. We cannot

hold that the mere deposit of the sale deed in the father''s name is a good deposit of title-deeds of the properties by the first defendant so as to

create a valid mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. T. Ethiraja Mudaliar, who appears for plaintiff-appellant before us, relies on paragraph 28 of

FISHER on Mortgage. We do not think that the paragraph in question is any authority for the position that where the only document that is

deposited shows no kind of title in the depositor to the property and there are documents in existence showing his title to the property which are

not deposited, an equitable mortgage is validly created by the deposit of the document which shows no title in him. We must, therefore, dismiss the

appeal with costs.

2.

As the court-fee has not been paid on the memorandum of objections, we dismiss it with costs.