JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's Second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Guna, in Civil First Appeal No. 177 of 1956 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:-On the 27th of June, 1951, the respondent-defendant mortgaged his trailor with the present appellant and his father Nardanlal for a sum of Rs. 2,500 and executed a registered deed Ex. P. 1 in their favour. On the same day by a separate deed the defendant took the trailor on hire at Rs. 50 p. m. for a period of 8 months. The defendant did not pay rent for 42 months and hence the suit for recovery of Rs, 2,100 and for return of the trailor. 3. The defendant admitted that he mortgaged the trailor as also that he took it on hire, but pleaded that the deed Ex. P. 2 for rent was executed in lieu of interest since the plaintiff could not in law charge at a rate exceeding 6% per annum, Various other pleas were raised by the defendant in the written-statement which need not be detailed here since they are not material to the decision of the present appeal. 4. The trial court decreed the claim for hire in the sum of Rs. 2,100, but did not pass a decree for return of the trailor. The lower appellate court held that the transaction was a pledge and that on the expiry of 8 months for which the trailor was taken on hire the plaintiff was not entitled to charge any rent. It, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's claim only to the extent of Rs. 430 with proportionate costs throughout. 5. The learned appellate Judge was of the opinion that there could be no mortgage of movable property. Although it is true that the Transfer of Property Act refers only to mortgage of immovable property and the Indian Contract Act refers to pledges of movable property, there is considerable authority in support of the proposition that a hypothecation of movable property though not accompanied with delivery of possession is valid and recognised in Indian Case Law. (See in Reference under Stamp Act, S. 46, I.L.R. 8 Mad. 104 B. Shivram vs. Dhau 4 Bom LR 577; Ke Shray Aung vs. Strong Steel and Co. ILR 21 Cal. (See in Reference under Stamp Act, S. 46, I.L.R. 8 Mad. 104 B. Shivram vs. Dhau 4 Bom LR 577; Ke Shray Aung vs. Strong Steel and Co. ILR 21 Cal. 241 Ambrose Summers; ILR 23 Cal 592 Puninthavelu vs. Bhashyam Ayyanger; ILR 26 Mad 406, 2 Mad. LJ 456; (Venkatachalam vs Venkatarami A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 929). Relying on these authorities I would hold that a valid mortgage in respect of the trailor was effected by virtue of the deed Ex. P. 1. The delivery of possession is not necessary to constitute a mortgage of movable property. Since, however, the transfer of movable property is not complete without delivery of possession such hypothecations have been described as creating equitable Charge [in the matter of Ambrose Summers (1896) 23 Cal. 592]. 6. The next question which has to be decided is with regard to the relief which the plaintiff would in law be entitled to seek on failure by the defendant to return the trailer after the expiry of the period of 8 months for which it was taken on hire under the agreement Ex. P. 2. My answer to this question is that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim damages for wrongful detention of movable property which the plaintiff had by virtue of the deed Ex. P. 1 a right to retain in his possession till the amount of Rs. 2,500 is paid. It would involve unnecessary waste of time to remand the case for a decision as to the quantum of damages which could be awarded to the plaintiff after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 8 months. Having regard to the nature of the property and the hire which it could not fetch. I consider it just and proper to award to the plaintiff damages at the rate of Rs. 15 p. m. till the defendant delivers the possession of the trailer to the plaintiff. It appears that the trial court was erroneously under the impression that the plaintiff had not sued for return of the trailer. The plaint contains in it a distinct prayer as to this relief. 7. I would, therefore, decree the plaintiff's claim for return of the trailer. The decree passed by the lower appellate Court is modified as stated above. The plaintiff shall be entitled to proportionate costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs 25. Appeal allowed