Madras High Court Allows Appeal by Financial Corporation in Guarantor Liability Case — Equitable Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds Valid Under Section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Guarantor's Liability Under Section 31(aa) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 Upheld Despite Absence of Registered Mortgage Deed.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 125
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, a public financial institution, filed an appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 625 of 2010. The appellant had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.5.50 lakhs on 28.08.1995 to the second to fourth respondents for starting a leather garments manufacturing unit, and a further capital term loan of Rs.5.50 lakhs. The second to fourth respondents hypothecated their machineries by deed of hypothecation dated 28.02.1996. The fifth respondent mortgaged his immovable property as security on 28.02.1996 by depositing title deeds, which was confirmed on the same day. The second to fourth respondents executed a deed of guarantee on 28.02.1996 and undertook to repay the loan in 28 quarterly instalments with interest at 17.5% p.a. The appellant contended that the respondents never repaid the loan and removed the machineries. The appellant initially invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and took constructive possession, but withdrew the action after the Supreme Court held that Section 29 does not confer power to recover from guarantors' properties. Thereafter, the appellant filed O.P.No. 625 of 2010 under Sections 31 and 31(aa) of the SFC Act seeking a judgment and decree against the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition against the first to fourth respondents but absolved the fifth and sixth respondents from liability. The appellant challenged that portion of the order. The court considered whether the deposit of title deeds by the fifth respondent created a valid equitable mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the fifth and sixth respondents were liable as guarantors under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. The court held that the deposit of title deeds constitutes a valid equitable mortgage, and the guarantor is liable under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it absolved the fifth and sixth respondents, and directed that the Original Petition be restored against them.

Headnote

A) State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Section 31(aa) - Guarantor Liability - Equitable Mortgage - The court considered whether a guarantor who deposits title deeds to create an equitable mortgage is liable under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. The court held that the deposit of title deeds constitutes a valid mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the guarantor is liable to be proceeded against under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge absolving the fifth and sixth respondents from liability. (Paras 1-10)

B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(f) - Equitable Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds - The court examined whether the deposit of title deeds by the fifth respondent created a valid equitable mortgage. The court held that the deposit of title deeds, confirmed by a letter, is sufficient to create an equitable mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the guarantor is liable under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. (Paras 3-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the fifth and sixth respondents, who had deposited title deeds as security for a loan, are liable as guarantors under Section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, despite the absence of a registered mortgage deed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it absolved the fifth and sixth respondents from liability, and directed that the Original Petition be restored against them.

Law Points

  • Equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds
  • Guarantor liability under State Financial Corporation Act
  • 1951
  • Section 31(aa) SFC Act
  • Section 58(f) Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
  • Letters Patent Appeal
  • Original Petition under SFC Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 236

OSA.No. 194 of 2018

2026-04-02

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU

2026:MHC:1336

Mr. K.Magesh, Mr. R.Krishnasamy

Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited

Thiru B.Kishtamma Naidu (died) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order of learned Single Judge in Original Petition under Sections 31 and 31(aa) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the portion of the order absolving the fifth and sixth respondents from liability and to restore the Original Petition against them.

Filing Reason

The appellant, a public financial institution, granted loans to the second to fourth respondents, who defaulted. The fifth respondent deposited title deeds as security. The appellant filed O.P. under SFC Act to recover dues. The learned Single Judge absolved the fifth and sixth respondents from liability, leading to this appeal.

Previous Decisions

The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition against the first to fourth respondents but absolved the fifth and sixth respondents from liability.

Issues

Whether the deposit of title deeds by the fifth respondent created a valid equitable mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? Whether the fifth and sixth respondents are liable as guarantors under Section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the fifth respondent had deposited title deeds as security, creating an equitable mortgage, and thus is liable under Section 31(aa) of the SFC Act. Respondents argued that the deposit of title deeds did not create a valid mortgage and that they were not liable.

Ratio Decidendi

The deposit of title deeds by a guarantor creates a valid equitable mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the guarantor is liable to be proceeded against under Section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner / the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited in O.P.No. 625 of 2010 is the appellant herein, having filed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2016 allowing the said Original Petition against the first to fourth respondents therein and absolving the fifth and sixth respondents from liability. It was contended by the petitioner that the fifth respondent had mortgaged his immovable property as security on 28.02.1996 and the title deeds were deposited on the same day and such deposit was independently confirmed on the same day.

Procedural History

The appellant filed O.P.No. 625 of 2010 under Sections 31 and 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition against the first to fourth respondents but absolved the fifth and sixth respondents from liability. The appellant filed the present appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against that portion of the order.

Acts & Sections

  • State Financial Corporation Act, 1951: Section 29, Section 31, Section 31(aa)
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 58(f)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Judicial Service Promotion Dispute; Seniority of Civil Judge Class II Cannot Override Experience as Civil Judge Class I Requirement. High Court Resolution Dated May 3, 1968, Properly Interpreted, Did Not Create a New Cl...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Export Inspection Agency Employee Due to Inordinate Delay. Delay of Over 18 Years in Concluding Proceedings Violates Article 14 and Principles of Natural Justice.