RAMAKRISHNA DOSS CHANDRATHNA DOSS Vs. PKESAVALU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues on an equitable mortgage. The 1 defendant created the mortgage and as he has become an insolvent, the 4 defendant the Official Assignee now represents his estate. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1 defendant and the 3 defendant holds a subsequent mortgage.

(2.) The first point I have to decide is the one that has been raised on behalf of the 2nd defendant. I must clearly point out that this point has not been urged either by the 1st, the 3 or the 4 defendants. They have expressly said they do not desire to urge that contention. The mortgage was created by deposit of title deeds. It now transpires that the 2nd defendant is in possession of a portion of the title deeds relating to this property. He produces them in Court and contends that as the deposit was not of all the title deeds a valid equitable mortgage could not have been created.

(3.) To deal with this argument, it is necessary in the first instance to examine whether it was a single house that was mortgaged or the property consists of two houses. It has been very clearly proved that on the date of the mortgage, the property was a single entire building having one street door and presenting the physical features of a single structure. The plaintiff before advancing the loan inspected the house and his evidence is to this effect. His statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. Moreover, the Corporation of Madras as well as the Taluk Office have treated the property as a single building and I must hold that the property mortgaged is one house known as 3/4, Amman Koil Street.