<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200881</link>
    <description>A mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act arises when deeds are delivered with intent to create security, without need for registration. A written memorandum becomes compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act only if, on its true construction, it is the operative bargain embodying the mortgage itself. The Court treated the letters here as evidence of a completed deposit, not as the instrument creating the charge, because they lacked essential terms and did not show a final written bargain. The equitable mortgage therefore remained valid without registration, and the plaintiff was entitled to a mortgage decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200881</link>
      <description>A mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act arises when deeds are delivered with intent to create security, without need for registration. A written memorandum becomes compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act only if, on its true construction, it is the operative bargain embodying the mortgage itself. The Court treated the letters here as evidence of a completed deposit, not as the instrument creating the charge, because they lacked essential terms and did not show a final written bargain. The equitable mortgage therefore remained valid without registration, and the plaintiff was entitled to a mortgage decree.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>