Judgment :- 1. The objection raised by defendants 1 & 2 in O. S. No. 129/1955 on the file of the Kottayam District Court to the maintainability of the suit, has given rise to this revision petition. These defendants had an overdraft accommodation with the Calicut branch of the Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. A sum of Rs. 1,47,024-8-11 was due to the bank from these defendants as the balance amount due as per accounts on 31st December 1952. At the request made by them in their letter dated 23rd March 1953, the accounts were transferred to the Kottayam branch of the bank. As collateral security for the amount due by these defendants, they executed a promissory note in favour of the bank on 23rd March 1953. The amount was further secured by a mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 7th August 1953 on which date the defendants addressed a letter to the bank intimating the fact of creation of such a mortgage and giving a list of the documents deposited with the bank. All these documents were also deposited with the bank on the same date. It is on the strength of these allegations that the plaintiff bank instituted the present suit for recovery of the balance amount due from the defendants as per the overdraft account, together with interest on such balance from the defendants and as a charge on the properties scheduled to the plaint, which are the items covered by the documents deposited with the bank. 2. By a separate application the plaintiff bank also moved for the appointment of a receiver to collect the income of these properties on the allegation that the security had become insufficient to satisfy the plaint claim and that the defendants were appropriating such income without even paying the interest on the outstanding loan. In opposing that application, the defendants reiterated their contention as raised in their written statement that the document evidencing the mortgage relied on by the plaintiff bank was one which had to be registered under S.17 of the Registration Act and that since it has not been so registered and no stamp duty paid on it, the document is inadmissible in evidence and the suit based on it is not maintainable. By the order dated 17-6-1956 the learned District Judge overruled these objections. The defendants have come up in revision, challenging the correctness of that order. By the order dated 17-6-1956 the learned District Judge overruled these objections. The defendants have come up in revision, challenging the correctness of that order. 3. The question for consideration is whether the communication addressed by the defendants to the bank on 7th August 1953 intimating the fact of the deposit of the title deeds enumerated therein as security for the balance amount due under the overdraft account, is a document compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act and whether the absence of such registration renders the document inadmissible in evidence. This question has to be answered after a due consideration of the nature of the document itself and also of the circumstances under which it happened to be executed and delivered. 4. The principles to be borne in mind in examining such a document to find out whether the effect of the document is to create a mortgage requiring registration, have been explained by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sundarachariar v. Narayana Ayyar (A.I.R.1931 P. C 36) and Hari Shankar v. Kadar Nath (A. I. R.1939 P. C. 167) and also by the Supreme Court in Rachpal v. Bhagwandas (A.I.R.1950 S.C. 272). In the first of these cases the debt was secured by a promissory-note and also by a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In the memorandum relating to the creation of the mortgage, the debtor had written to the creditor as follows: As agreed upon in person, I have delivered to you the undermentioned documents as security". In referring to this memorandum the Privy Council pointed out that the memorandum merely recorded the particulars of the documents which were delivered as security in pursuance of an agreement reached in person and that it did not state what were the terms of the agreement or indicate the nature of the matter for which the title deeds were deposited as security. It was further observed as follows. "Even if it was a condition of the advance that the memorandum was to be given, the fact that the memorandum was prepared, signed and handed over to the mortgagee before the advance of the balance of the money to be secured by the deposit could not alter the nature and meaning of the document. It was and remained a list of the documents deposited and nothing more. It was and remained a list of the documents deposited and nothing more. It did not embody the terms of the agreement between the parties. Upon this view of the matter apart from authority it would in their Lordships' opinion be impossible to hold that the document purported or operated to create or declare any right, title or interest in the property and required to be registered under S.17, Registration Act". The document which had to be construed in Hari Shankar v. Kadar Nath (A. I. R.1939 P. C. 167) was not a mere memorandum evidencing the creation of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, but had gone much further and had embodied the terms of a contemporaneous contractual agreement. After examining the nature of that document, the Privy Council observed as follows: "Where, as here the parties professing to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds contemporaneously enter into a contractual agreement, in writing, which is made an integral part of the transaction and is itself an operative instrument and not merely evidential, such a document must under the statute be registered". Both these cases were cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Rachpal v. Bhagwandas (A. I. R.1950 S. C. 272). The memorandum which the Supreme Court had to consider in the case was in the form of a letter addressed to the creditor and had contained the following terms: "We write to put on record that to secure the repayment of the money already due to you from us on account of the business transactions between yourselves and ourselves and the money that may hereafter become due on account of such transactions we have this day deposited with you the following title deeds with intent to create an equitable mortgage on the said properties to secure all moneys including interest that may be found due and payable by us to you on account of the said transactions". The Supreme Court held that this memorandum delivered by the debtor along with the title deeds deposited with the creditor did not require registration and that it could be properly admitted in evidence to prove the creation of the charge. The Supreme Court held that this memorandum delivered by the debtor along with the title deeds deposited with the creditor did not require registration and that it could be properly admitted in evidence to prove the creation of the charge. While coming to such a conclusion, the following principles were also enunciated: "When the debtor deposits with the creditor the title deeds of his property with intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage, and no registered instrument is required under S.59 as in other forms of mortgage. But if the parties choose to reduce the contract to writing, the implication is excluded by their express bargain, and the document will be sole evidence of its terms. In such a case, the deposit and the document both form integral parts of the transaction and are essential ingredients in the creation of the mortgage. As the deposit alone is not intended to create the charge and the document, which constitutes the bargain regarding the security, is also necessary and operates to create the charge in conjunction with the deposit, it requires registration under S.17, Registration Act, as a non-testamentary instrument creating an interest in immovable property, where the value of such property is one hundred rupees and upwards. The time factor is not decisive. The document may be handed over to the creditor along with the title deeds and yet may not be registerable as in Sundarachariar v. Narayana Ayyar (A. I. R.1931 P. C. 36). Or, it may be delivered at a later date and nevertheless be registerable, as in Hari Shankar.v. Kedar Nath (A I. R.1939 P. C. 167). The crucial question is: Did the parties intend to reduce their bargain regarding this deposit of the title deeds to the form of a document? If so the document requires registration. If, on the other hand, its proper construction and the surrounding circumstances lead to the conclusion that the parties did not intend to do so, then, there being no express bargain, the contract to create the mortgage arises by implication of the law from the deposit itself with the requisite intention, and the document, being merely evidential, does not require registration". 5. 5. Applying the above test to the document in the present case, there can be no doubt that it did not purport to embody any contract between the parties or to reduce to writing any bargain between them, but was merely intended as a record to evidence the fact that there has been a deposit of title deeds by way of security for the outstanding loan. As already stated, the document in question is only a memorandum or letter addressed by the defendants to the plaintiff bank and it runs as follows: "Dear Sirs, We hereby deposit the following registered title deeds as security for the balance of overdraft account due from us to you". The particulars of the documents have been enumerated at the foot of the letter. It has also to be remembered that this memorandum was sent some time after the debt had been secured by a promissory-note. The letter or memorandum does not even remotely refer to any contract or agreement between the parties. On the other hand, it is only an intimation of the fact of the deposit of title deeds with the intention of creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is clear from clause (f) of S.58 of the Transfer of Property Act that the intention that the properties covered by the document should form security for the loan is also essential for the creation of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Such an intention may be express or implied. Normally, the intention will be gathered from the circumstances under which the title deeds have been deposited. Sometimes the parties may desire to have such intention expressed in the memorandum accompanying the deposit of title deeds. The intention being thus expressed, will not by itself alter the nature of the transaction which will still be a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Such a mortgage is distinguished from other types of mortgages and is exempted from the rule of registration enunciated in S.59 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the memorandum in question does not embody any agreement or contract purporting to create any interest in immovable property, it is not compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act also. 6. Such a mortgage is distinguished from other types of mortgages and is exempted from the rule of registration enunciated in S.59 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the memorandum in question does not embody any agreement or contract purporting to create any interest in immovable property, it is not compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act also. 6. No question of levy of stamp duty under Art.6 of the Stamp Act can also arise in respect of this memorandum because that Article applies only to agreements relating to deposit of title deeds, pawn or pledge. Thus the lower court was right in holding that no stamp duty need be levied on the memorandum in question and that it is not a document compulsorily registerable and that it can be received in evidence in support of the plaint claim. 7. In the result this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.