Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Binapani Roja vs Rabindranath Sarkar And Ors. on 21 July, 1958 cites

Obla Sundarachariar vs Narayana Ayyar on 13 January, 1931

The evidence of Ajen Ghosh is consistent with the document, and I am bound to hold, on the evidence before me, that the letter of deposit was executed after the equitable mortgage had been created by the deposit of title deeds on receipt of the money. I agree that if the letter of deposit itself can be treated as the bargain or the contract of mortgage, then the document, be it in the form of a letter of deposit, memorandum or an agreement, must be registered, in order that a valid mortgage may be created. But if the equitable mortgage is effected by oral deposit of title deeds to create a security and subsequently a document is created recording this fact, such a document is not required to be registered. (See Sundarachariar v. Narayana Ayyar ; Hari Shankar Paul v. Kedar Nath Saha and Sir Dinshaw Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, 3rd Edition, page 361). In the instant case the letter of deposit is nothing more than a record of a past transaction and as such, in my judgment, it is not required to be registered. I am bound to hold that the equitable mortgage in suit is perfectly valid in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 37 - Full Document
1