https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287101 The bank failed to prove a valid equitable mortgage because the alleged deposit of title deeds was not shown to be a reliable, contemporaneous act connected with the overdraft transaction, and the documents lacked essential particulars of the secured loan. The claim for recovery was also not saved by limitation because the alleged acknowledgments were materially defective, inconsistently completed, and did not satisfactorily evidence the debt or liability in writing. As the bank did not discharge the burden of proving mortgage and a fresh limitation period, the decree dismissing the suit for recovery was upheld. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:38:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287101 The bank failed to prove a valid equitable mortgage because the alleged deposit of title deeds was not shown to be a reliable, contemporaneous act connected with the overdraft transaction, and the documents lacked essential particulars of the secured loan. The claim for recovery was also not saved by limitation because the alleged acknowledgments were materially defective, inconsistently completed, and did not satisfactorily evidence the debt or liability in writing. As the bank did not discharge the burden of proving mortgage and a fresh limitation period, the decree dismissing the suit for recovery was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287101