High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Passive Infra Projects … vs State Of Haryana & Others on 23 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Passive Infra Projects … vs State Of Haryana & Others on 23 March, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No.4563 of 2009                      :1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 23, 2009



M/s Passive Infra Projects Private Limited, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi

                                                             .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS

State of Haryana & others

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:            Mr.Deepender Singh, Advocate,
                    for the petitioner.

                           ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Company is sanctioned financial assistance of

Rs.970 lacs by Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI).

The petitioner-Company, as a security, wished to mortgage the

immovable property of the Company at Village Hassangarh, District

Rohtak. The Company accordingly offered its property for equitable

mortgage as per Section 58 (f) of Transfer of Property Act by deposit

of original title deeds. The petitioner-Company wrote a letter for

entering the mutation on the basis of mortgage by deposit of title

deeds in favour of SIDBI. Respondent No.2 did not enter the
Civil Writ Petition No.4563 of 2009 :2:

mutation. Even SIDBI wrote to respondent No.2 for entering

mutation on the basis of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The copy

of the order passed by this Court was enclosed with the request letter

but respondent Nos.2 and 3 refused to enter mutation of the

mortgage. The petitioner-Company has, thus, filed the present writ

petition, seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to enter mutation in the revenue record without insisting

the petitioner to execute registered mortgage deed of the immovable

properties, which are sought to be mortgaged by deposit of title

deeds (equitable mortgage).

Since the petitioner rely upon a judgment passed by

Division Bench, which squarely covers the case of the petitioner,

there is no need to issue notice to the respondents and the writ

petition can be disposed of in limine at this stage only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to order

Annexure P-6 passed by Division Bench of this Court where similar

direction has been issued. The Division Bench of this Court, after

referring to number of judgments, has held as under:-

“We are convinced that the mortgage which was created

in favour of the bank by deposit of title-deeds and this

transaction did not require registration. The provisions of

the Registration Act and the Stamp Act did not apply.”

The Division Bench has further held as under:-

“We are of the view that an equitable mortgage is created

by deposit of title-deeds and not through any written

instrument. Simple pledge of the title-deeds to the bank

as securing creates an equitable mortgage, therefore,
Civil Writ Petition No.4563 of 2009 :3:

there is never an instrument of deposit of title-deed/

equitable mortgage. The petitioner simply went to the

bank and handed over the title-deeds of their respective

properties. This act was enough to create a mortgage as

envisaged under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property

Act. Quite often a memorandum is simply a written

record of the pledge. The memorandum itself is not an

instrument of mortgage. The judgment of Karnataka High

Court has considered this aspect in detail and come to

the conclusion that a memorandum evidencing a

transaction of equitable mortgage neither creates a

mortgage nor establishes an equitable mortgage created

by the deposit of title-deeds, therefore, such a

memorandum was not compulsorily registerable.”

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and direction

was issued to enter mutation in favour of the Bank regarding the

properties, which stand equitable mortgaged in favour of the Bank

concerned by deposit of title deeds. The present writ petition is

squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above noted

judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court.

Accordingly, direction is hereby issued to the respondents

to enter mutation in favour of the Bank regarding the properties which

stand equitable mortgaged in favour of SIDBI by deposit of title

deeds.

March 23, 2009                                  ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                              JUDGE