MONEYLINE CREDIT LTD Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this execution first appeal is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 22.1.2013. Trial court by the impugned judgment has dismissed the execution proceedings by holding that there were no rights of a mortgagee created in favour of the appellant inasmuch as and in fact the objectors being the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, and who are not the judgment debtors, were the owners of the suit property by means of the purchase under a sale deed dated 20.1.2009 from the legal heirs of the original owner and that subsequently this property was mortgaged to the respondent no.3-bank herein i.e M/s. Central Bank of India at Greater Kailash-II Branch, New Delhi.

(2.) The judgment of the executing court is a very thorough and exhaustive judgment. I would therefore seek to reproduce two important paragraphs of the judgment which refer to the fact that what was handed over to the appellant by the judgment debtor were not the title deeds but only an allotment letter and a possession letter with respect to the property which was allegedly mortgaged i.e L-17C, DDA, Janta Flats, Near Green Fields School, Saket, New Delhi, and, mortgage cannot be created in the absence of deposit of the original title deeds. These paras are paras 4.2 and 6.4 and which read as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents/objectors refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Janakiraman Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras, 2006 1 SCC 697 in which Supreme Court has said that equitable mortgage cannot be created without depositing the original title deeds and because original title deeds had not been deposited in the present case, consequently there is no valid mortgage as is claimed by the appellant.