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