DEIVANAIAMMAL Vs. NACHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is little substance in this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents. The case of the complainant was that he granted a mortgage in favour of the first accused for Rs. 10,000/- in February, 1967, and at the time of the execution of the mortgage, he handed over five prior title deeds to the first accused that subsequently he got the mortgage discharged through the Land Mortgage Bank, and that despite the discharge, the mortgagee failed to hand over the prior title deeds and was therefore guilty of the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the accused was that actually the title deeds were handed over by them to the Land Mortgage Bank and the latter Bank must have misplaced the same.

(3.) EVEN assuming the complainant's case to be true, no offence has been made out. If at the time of the discharge of the mortgage, the mortgagee had even perversely refused to return the title deeds, it might constitute a violation of an implied contract, and it is open to the mortgagor to sue the mortgagee for recoverv of thp title deeds in specie or for damages in the alternative. I fail to see (how this violation of the contract could constitute an offence either under Section 405 or under Section 415, I. P. C. Section 405 prescribes: