SATTI VENKATESWARA REDDY Vs. MALLIDI VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 109 of 2010 is the petitioner herein and the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, seeking a preliminary decree for Rs. 8,95,101/ - against the defendant based on equitable mortgage created in respect of the property of dry land of an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in R.S. No. 437/1 and an extent of Ac. 0.64 cents in R.S. No. 437/2 situated in Penugonda village and Mandal, West Godavari District. When PW. 1 was being examined, he wanted to mark the document styled as Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed, which was executed subsequent to the execution of promissory note dated 28 -03 -2008 and the defendant objected to the marking of the same. The defendant raised the objection that the said document is compulsorily registerable as required under Sec. 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act. There was no dispute with regard to the document being unregistered. The trial Court overruled the objection by order dated 27 -01 -2015 and challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The document in question was styled as Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 30 -03 -2008. It states that on 28 -03 -2008 the executant took a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ - on the basis of promissory note and the lender required the lendee to secure the said loan by some immovable property on 29 -03 -2008 and in furtherance of the said requirement, he wanted to create a security of the property, which was registered under document No. 433 of 2003 in favour of lendee and handed over the original document as security with a condition that after payment of full amount under the promissory note, the original document along with the promissory note would be taken back. The document also recites that the lender is entitled to recover the amount against the property given as security. The document in Telugu reads as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant relied on various decisions before the trial Court, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana and others v/s. Navir Singh and another ( : 2014 (1) ALD 13 SC). The trial Court by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Durga Emporium, Vijayawada v/s. M/s. Munaga Brothers Cloth Merchants, Cuddapah ( : 2002 (5) ALD 135 DB) overruled the objection. The trial Court mainly held that the document was executed subsequent to taking of the loan and since it was executed for the past transaction and for the purpose of security for the debt, the document creates only equitable mortgage under Sec. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and it is not compulsorily registerable document as required under Sec. 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act.