(1.) in the course of an eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), which was filed by the petitioner, against the respondent, lie sought to mark two documents in support of his claim that he had right to the properly, which he leased to the respondent; one of the documents was an alleged deed of usufructuary mortgage, under which the original owner had supposed to have mortgaged the premises in favour of the petitioner, with possession. The olher document is allegedly a lease deed for eleven months under which, respondent is staled to have taken the premises on lease from the petitioner, the mortgagee. Both these documents were neither registered, nor properly stamped; hence the trial court refused to receive them in evidence.
(2.) the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, earlier, the premises in question was mortgaged to the petitioner by way of deposit of title deeds, and it had been properly registered; thereafter as an additional security, the same was usufructuarily mortgaged; therefore, the deed did not require registration. For this purpose, the learned counsel relied on a decision of this court in narayana Rao m.s. v m.s. shivanna, 1988(2) KAR. L.J. 330. In the said case, there was an unregistered agreement to partition the family properly, resulting in the execution of a registered partition deed subsequently. Therefore, this court held, non-registration of the agreement would not come in the way of proving the said agreement, to prove the date on which the family stood divided in status. I fail to understand as to how the said decision would help the petitioner's case. In the instant case, there was a registered mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds. Thereafter another mortgage of the same property was effected, by way of giving possession to the morlgagee and this second mortgage was an usufructuary mortgage. It is a distinct and different transfer of the interest in favour of the mortgagee, from the earlier mortgage by way of deposit of title deed. The nature of interest created by usufructuary mortgage is quite different from the interest created by the earlier transaction. The rights flowing out of the two transactions are different, though the consideration for the transactions in both cases was the same. The deed of usufructuary mortgage, to be legally effective requires to be compulsorily registered. In fact, mortgage by deposit of title deed is not required to be registered under the law, and this regard other kinds of mortgages are treated differently.
(3.) the observations made in munigharajendra co. V chief controlling revenue authority & others, 1974(1) KAR. L.J. 177 (fb) is again under a different context. Title deeds had already been deposited with the mortgagee towards an earlier loan. A further loan was obtained by the mortgagor on the security of the same title deeds deposited earlier with the creditor. It was held by the full bench, that the mere ac knowledgment by both the parties that the same title deeds would be held as security for the additional sum does not require to be stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, because, under the circumstances of the said case, the subsequent letter was not intended by the mortgagees to be the sole repository of the terms of the equitable mortgage and it was only a letter containing an acknowledgment of an already concluded equitable mortgage; this second letter was not an instrument by which any right or liability was created in respect of an immoveable property.