Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Sec.58(f)–Decree of suit by the Single Bench with the observation that the respondent-defendant had agreed to create the equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds–In the appeal, the Division Bench hold that the appellant failed to prove that there was a mortgage executed by the respondent-defendant–Thereafter, the Civil Misc. Petition filed by the appellant for restoration of main appeal was also dismissed–Justification–Observation of Division Bench that the plaint averments are self-contradictory and vague, are factually incorrect–Agreement only records what has happened and does not create/extinguish the rights/liabilities–Ground of respondent that the agreement was executed by threat and coercion was to be proved by him–Single Bench appreciated the law correctly in holding that is was a mortgage in view of the provisions of Sec. 58(f) of Act–First impugned order passed by Division Bench cannot be sustained–Consequently the second impugned order would also get nullified for all practical purposes.
