ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 81 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, filed this revision. He feels aggrieved by an order dated 26-9-2005, passed by the trial Court, refusing to receive a document in evidence.
2. Petitioner filed the suit against the respondent, for recovery of certain amount. He pleaded that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him, and executed a mortgage deed, dated 28-11-2001, as a security for repayment. According to him, even while the said mortgage was in force, the respondent borrowed a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 8-1-2002, and an agreement is said to have been executed to the said amount, on the same day, in relation to that amount.
3. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner intended to introduce the agreement, dated 8-1-2002, into evidence. The respondent raised an objection, stating that the document is inadmissible in evidence, since it is a deed of mortgage, but not registered. Through the order under revision, the trial Court upheld the objection.
4. Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document by itself does not bring about any transaction of mortgage. He contends that it evidences receipt of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and contains an agreement on the part of the respondent, to cover this liability also under the existing mortgage in case the amount is not repaid in four months. He contends that such a document is not required to be registered.
5. Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the document discloses that it purports to mortgage an item of property, as a measure of security for the alleged payment made by the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, it was required to be registered under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. A reading of the document in question, discloses that it contains of two parts. The first part of the document is to the effect that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner, and has undertaken to repay it, within four months. The second part of the document states that in case, the amount is not repaid within four months, the liability will be brought under the transaction of mortgage, evidenced to document dated 28-11-2001. The recital is somewhat cryptic and vague. The record discloses that the document was subjected to impounding. The trial Court proceeded as though the document brings about an independent transaction of mortgage, and since it was not registered, as required under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, it refused to receive it in evidence.
7. As observed earlier, the document by itself does not bring about any independent transaction of mortgage. On the other hand, an existing mortgage is referred to in the second part of the document. It does not speak about any independent transaction, but only binds the respondent herein, to bring about a mortgage, in case the amount is not repaid within four months. Viewed from any angle, the document cannot be treated as a deed of mortgage.
8. At any rate, the first part of the document explains only the factum of borrowing of the amount by the respondent. That apart of the document can certainly become admissible in evidence. The second part, which by itself does not bring about any transaction, and at the most, spells out a promise, cannot vitiate the first part. The petitioner is not seeking the relief of enforcement of the undertaking given by the respondent, for bringing about the mortgage, in the event of failure to repay the amount within four months. Hence, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law
9. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed, and the order under revision is set aside, and the document shall be received in evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.