Disputed questions of fact and equitable mortgage claims cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings

A claim that an equitable mortgage and resulting charge had been created by deposit of a copy of the sale deed depended on intention and surrounding circumstances, including the letter of 2 April 1996. The Court held that such a question required pleading and proof in a civil suit and could not be decided in writ proceedings as it involved disputed questions of fact. It therefore found no infirmity in the order declining writ relief and relegating the petitioner to the civil court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the existence of an equitable mortgage and resulting charge over the property, claimed to have been created by deposit of a copy of the sale deed, raised a disputed question of fact that could not be decided in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The claim that the third respondent created an equitable mortgage in favour of the department depended on intention and surrounding circumstances, including the letter dated 2 April 1996 and the alleged deposit of the copy of the sale deed. The existence of such an arrangement was held to be a matter for pleading and proof in a civil suit. The Court held that disputed questions of fact of this nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. On that basis, it found no infirmity in the order declining writ relief and relegating the petitioner to the civil court.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents; the writ petition was not maintainable for adjudication of the disputed factual controversy.

---