VELAMAKANYA KRISHNAIYA Vs. PONNUSWAMY AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Phillips, J., in which he decided that a loan made to the defendant by the plaintiffs firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title deeds was secured by a valid equitable mortgage. The facts of the case are that the defendant was a servant in a certain firm and had borrowed from time to time monies from that firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title deeds of his house. The firm dissolved and the plaintiffs firm took over the assets and liabilities of the firm and continued the defendant in their employment. Shortly after the taking over of the firm they made an advance of Rs. 500 to the defendant and took a promissory-note from him for tire outstanding amount of his indebtedness to the old firm plus Rs. 500 and at a later date they made further advances to him, some secured by promissory notes. About the time of the advance of Rs. 500 the document, Ex, B., was executed by the defendant and it runs thus.

(2.) Collateral security letter in respect of a house executed in favour of Messrs. Peruru Viswanadham and Koneti Desikacharyalu Co. of Madras. As you have this day obtained an assignment of the sum of Rs. 1,945 due by me to Messrs. Peruru Viswanadham and Co. the same being the sum, of principal and interest due, I have this day executed a pro-note in your favour for this sum and the sum of Rs. 500 taken today i. e., the total of Rs. 2,4.45, so let it be known that for that I have retained with you as collateral security my document of the Collector's certificate No. 815 in respect of my house bearing door No. 11, Thiruva- vateeswaranpet, Madras.

(3.) This, I understand from my learned brother is a more accurate translation than that printed in the documents. The defendant says that that document is in itself an equitable mortgage of his house and, as it has not been registered it cannot be given in evidence.