CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree in original suit No. 7640 of 1992 on the file of the vii additional city civil judge, Bangalore, whereby the said judge decreed the redemption suit of the respondent. ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri b. n. dayananda and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri b. s. nagaraj. I have also perused the case records. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: that the appellant who was the owner of property bearing old No. 39/41, new municipal No. 18, situated at ii main road, gavipuram guttahalli, Bangalore, described as schedule 'a' to plaint, had sold the same to one ramachandra, son of kotrappa under a registered sale deed dated 13-11-1986, ex. P-2. Thereafter, the respondent had purchased the said property from the said ramachandra under a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1992 marked as ex. P-1. The entire property consisted of three tenements. There were two tenants by name kamalamma and papanna when the respondent purchased the property from ramachandra as stated above; however, the third tenement was under the occupation of the appellant at that point of time and he continued to be so even to this day and the same is described as 'b' schedule property to suit before the court below. The respondent after his purchase of the suit schedule property had filed two eviction cases against the said tenants and also took possession of the said two tenements through court. It is stated that the vendor of the respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant and allowed him to stay in the 'b' schedule property for about one year and that the appellant had executed an agreement to that effect in favour of the vendor of the respondent. It further appears that after one year, the appellant went on postponing to deliver possession of the 'b' schedule property to the vendor of the respondent and in the meantime, the respondent purchased the entire property from the said ramachandra when the possession in respect of the portion under the occupation of the appellant more fully set out as suit schedule 'b' property continued to be in his possession. That the respondent had approached the appellant to take back the sum of Rs. That the respondent had approached the appellant to take back the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, but the appellant did not oblige the respondent to receive the money and to hand over possession of the 'b' schedule property. It is averred that the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- was received by the vendor of the respondent as a sum under an agreement of usufructuory mortgage and it is for that reason the respondent filed a redemption suit before the vii additional city civil judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as city civil judge for convenience), for the redemption of the 'b' schedule property and farther for possession thereof. At the time of the registration of the suit, the respondent had also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which according to the respondent was the mortgage money before the court below. ( 4 ) THE appellant having been served with the notice appeared before the court below and filed his written statement contending that he was the owner of the 'a' schedule property and that he sold the same in favour of the vendor of the respondent. However, he had contended that he was not aware of the sale deed executed by ramachandra in favour of the respondent. He had further contended in his written statement that the respondent-vendor ramachandra had entered into an oral agreement with the appellant for the sale of the 'suit schedule 'a' property and he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,100/- on 23-6-1991 to the said ramachandra. That he was not having any knowledge with regard to the eviction of kamalamma and papanna. He had further denied the contention of the respondent that the appellant had availed a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from ramachandra, the vendor of the respondent and executed a document for effecting usufructuory mortgage as claimed by the respondent in his suit. In the said written statement the appellant had also taken objection with regard to the valuation of the suit, for according to him, the court fee paid by the respondent before the court below was insufficient and therefore the respondent was not entitled to for the relief sought for in the suit. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the court below hadframed the following issues. "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that when his vendor ramachandra purchased 'a' schedule premises, defendant offered to advance a hand loan of Rs. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the court below hadframed the following issues. "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that when his vendor ramachandra purchased 'a' schedule premises, defendant offered to advance a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- to the said ramachandra on condition that he should be allowed to stay in the 'b' schedule property for one year and accordingly paid Rs. 10,000/- to ramachandra? 2. Whether the defendant executed an agreement in writing to the said effect? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for redemption of mortgage of the 'b' schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the 'b' schedule property? 5. Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient? ( 6 ) WHAT decree or order?"6. Out of the above issues, issue No. 5 relating to the court fee was heard as a preliminary issue and the court below by passing an order on 1-8-1995 thereon, answered the said issue No. 5 in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. ( 7 ) THE respondent had examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked as many as 10 documents-exs. P-1 to p-10. However, the appellant did not choose to adduce any evidence from his side. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the court below had recorded its findings as against the above issues as hereunder:"issue No. 1. Yes. Issue No. 2. Yes. Issue No. 3. Yes. Issue No. 4. Yes. Issue No. 5. Already held in the affirmative. Issue No. 6. Yes. Issue No. 7. As per order". ( 8 ) THE learned civil judge in passing the impugned judgment had recorded a finding as against issue nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the respondent and finally the learned civil judge had decreed the suit of the respondent for redemption of the mortgage. The appellant herein having been aggrieved thereto had resorted to the instant appeal. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued at the outset that the learned civil judge had totally mislaid himself to decree the suit of the respondent holding that ex. P-10, a typed copy of the mortgage deed was sufficient to prove the nature of possession of the appellant to say that he is a mortgagee in possession of the subject property. P-10, a typed copy of the mortgage deed was sufficient to prove the nature of possession of the appellant to say that he is a mortgagee in possession of the subject property. Sri dayananda argued that one cannot think of a suit for redemption of mortgage without there being a duly registered mortgage deed as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act and under Section 59 of the Transfer Of Property Act. He pointed out that in the instant case, admittedly there was no registered mortgage deed between the parties evidencing mortgage. He further submitted that what was produced before the court below by the respondent in support of his case is ex. P-10, a typed copy of an agreement termed as mortgage deed that came to be executed by the appellant on the one side and the vendor of the respondent on the other, wherein it was agreed upon between the said parties that the appellant would continue to stay in the suit schedule property for a period of one year and that in consideration of such stay in the subject premises, the vendor of the respondent would be at liberty to retain with him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of the sale consideration of the entire property then sold by the appellant to the vendor of the respondent under sale deed ex. P-2. ( 10 ) IN support of his argument, Sri dayananda had also cited before me a reported decision in ramaprasad v Smt. Kalyani and others, on the point that when the mortgage of a property is for Rs. 100/- or upwards, an unregistered mortgage deed is invalid and no evidence is admissible to prove such a mortgage in view of provision under Section 59 of Transfer Of Property Act. He had also cited before me yet another decision in raoji appaji kulkarni (dead) by l. rs. V badibi and others , to the point that an unregistered deed of sale can be made use only for collateral purposes of proving the nature or character of possession and nothing beyond. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, Sri dayananda argued that the learned city civil judge had totally erred in passing the impugned judgment to decree the redemption suit filed by the respondent. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, Sri dayananda argued that the learned city civil judge had totally erred in passing the impugned judgment to decree the redemption suit filed by the respondent. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and decree of the court below be set aside and that this court be further pleased to dismiss the suit of the respondent. ( 12 ) BEFORE commencing his side of the argument, Sri nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondent had given me the history of the case between the parties. In his argument he submitted that originally the suit schedule 'a' property belonged to the appellant herein and he had sold the same to the vendor of the respondent under a duly registered deed of sale-ex. P-2 and that at that point of time, to retain the suit schedule 'b' property (which is part of suit schedule 'a' property) he had entered into an agreement (ex. P-10) with the vendor of the respondent agreeing that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of the sale consideration be collected by him from the vendor of the respondent when he vacated from the 'b' schedule property on or before one year from that date and it is thereafter, when the appellant continued to stay in the 'b' schedule property, the purchaser of the suit schedule 'a' property from the appellant had sold the same to the respondent herein under deed of sale dated 13-4-1992, marked as ex. P-1. That it is thus, the appellant continued to stay in the suit schedule 'b' property even when the respondent had become the owner of the suit schedule 'a' property. That he continued to stay under ex. P-10. The learned counsel for the respondent however argued that though ex. P-10 is a typed copy of the original agreement between the appellant and the vendor of the respondent, the same is very much available and admissible in evidence for the respondent to show the nature of possession of the suit schedule 'b' property by the appellant. ( 13 ) HE further pointed out that ex. P-10 was produced before the learned city civil judge only to show the nature of possession of suit schedule 'b' property in the hands of the appellant and that he had proved before the city civil judge that the appellant had continued as a mortgagee in possession of suit schedule 'b' property. P-10 was produced before the learned city civil judge only to show the nature of possession of suit schedule 'b' property in the hands of the appellant and that he had proved before the city civil judge that the appellant had continued as a mortgagee in possession of suit schedule 'b' property. Therefore, he submitted that it was rightly appreciated by the learned city civil judge to hold that the possession of the appellant was by way of mortgage. According to Sri nagaraj, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned city civil judge is just and proper and there is nothing for the appellant to complain before this court in resorting to the instant appeal. In support of the argument, Sri nagaraj had also cited before me a reported decision in rahim bux v illahi bux and another , on the point that, a photo copy of unregistered sale deed is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act as secondary evidence for the limited purpose of showing the nature of possession under an unregistered mortgage deed. Sri nagaraj further submitted in this context that the facts in the said reported case and the facts in the instant case in hand are one and the same. Therefore, Sri nagaraj submitted that there is no merit in the instant appeal filed by the appellant and therefore he prayed that the same be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned city civil judge. ( 14 ) HAVING heard both sides, the point for my consideration now is whether the impugned judgment and decree of the court below is sustainable in view of the fact that there was no registered mortgage deed evidencing mortgage between the appellant on the one side and the vendor of the respondent on the other to base a suit for redemption of mortgage. ( 15 ) AT the outset, I should point out here that in a suit for redemption, a condition precedent is that there should be a registered mortgage deed evidencing the mortgage of immoveable property for a sum of Rs. 100/- or upwards secured as mortgage money evidencing the mortgage as contemplated under Section 59 of Transfer Of Property Act. To advert to the said provision of law, the same reads as follows:"59. 100/- or upwards secured as mortgage money evidencing the mortgage as contemplated under Section 59 of Transfer Of Property Act. To advert to the said provision of law, the same reads as follows:"59. Where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. Where the principal money secured is less than one hundred rupees, a mortgage may be effected either by a registered instrument signed and attested as aforesaid, or (except in the case of a simple mortgage) by delivery of the property". ( 16 ) IN the light of the above provision of law, it is clear that amortgage does not become complete and enforceable until it is registered as contemplated under the law as above and that if it is not registered, it cannot operate as a mortgage. In the instant case in hand, it appears to me that the position of the respondent is no way better than a trespasser and the best course that was open to the respondent was to sue the appellant on his title instead of resorting to redemption suit, for the provision in Section 59 of the Transfer Of Property Act is essentially a Rule of law and not a Rule of evidence. ( 17 ) IT is not the case of the respondent that the original of ex. P-10 was a registered mortgage deed compulsorily registrable under Section 59 of the Transfer Of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act. Obviously, there is no worth document produced by the respondent before the learned city civil judge to be evidenced as mortgage and as such, institution of the very suit by the respondent for redemption of mortgage before the learned city civil judge is totally misconceived. When that is the legal position, I am at a loss to understand how the learned city civil judge had granted a judgment and decree, herein impugned, in favour of the appellant. With regard to the reported decision in rahim bux's case, supra, cited before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, I can only say that in view of the legal position as above, it is difficult for me to follow the said decision. With regard to the reported decision in rahim bux's case, supra, cited before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, I can only say that in view of the legal position as above, it is difficult for me to follow the said decision. Therefore, with due respect, I differ to agree with the views of the learned single judge who had decided the rahim bux's case, supra. In my considered view, the other decision in ramaprasad's case, supra, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be the correct view. Therefore, I prefer to follow the said decision. ( 18 ) IN that view of the matter, I find that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned city civil judge in decreeing the suit for redemption of mortgage is totally erroneous and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. ( 19 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned city civil judge is hereby set aside and I further proceed to dismiss the suit of the respondent. ( 20 ) THE appeal therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed; besides the suit of the respondent stands dismissed. --- *** --- .