Judgment :- A.K. RAJAN, J. 1. The applicants are the third and fourth defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed C.S. No. 943 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,74,83,720/- Plaintiff also filed an Application No. 4322 of 1999, under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C. for a direction against the defendants 1 to 4 to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim, failing which for attachment before judgment of the immovable property. This Court by order dated 8.2.2001 directed the defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim within eight weeks failing which order of attachment before judgment was to be ordered with respect to the property extending to 20.491 grounds. Against that order, O.S.A. No. 171 of 2001 was filed. The Division Bench on 28.6.2001 modified the order and directed the defendants to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 150.00 lakhs by way of bank guarantee and also to furnish immovable property security of 10 grounds of land. 2. The applicants filed an Application No. 2175 of 2000 in Application No. 4322 of 1999 seeking permission to deposit the certified copies of the sale deed for furnishing security, since the property forming the subject matter of the application is only a portion of a larger extent of property belonging to the 1st and 2nd defendant and as such, it may not be possible for the owners to produce the original title deeds as security since the title deeds cover larger property. Though the application was filed before filing of O.S.A. 171 of 2001 it came up for consideration only after the disposal of O.S. Appeal. On the date of hearing of the Application No. 2175 of 2001 on 2.7.2001, the counsel for the plaintiff made an endorsement stating that the plaintiff has, “no objection for furnishing certified copies of documents” for the purpose of furnishing immovable property security. 3. In view of the endorsement made by the counsel for the plaintiff, the application was allowed. The Registry entertains a doubt whether the certified copies of the documents can be received instead of original title deeds while testing the security for furnishing immovable property security. This application is filed to clarify the order passed and also for a direction to the Registry to accept certified copies of title deeds for furnishing immovable property security. 4. The Registry entertains a doubt whether the certified copies of the documents can be received instead of original title deeds while testing the security for furnishing immovable property security. This application is filed to clarify the order passed and also for a direction to the Registry to accept certified copies of title deeds for furnishing immovable property security. 4. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the order passed in Application No. 2175 of 2001 is a consent order and hence binding on the plaintiff. Security bonds do not require registration; The provisions of Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the execution of security bonds. The counsel pointed out that the Registrys objection is based on the decision of this Court in O.S.A. Nos. 65, 70 and 71 of 1956, dated 28.7.1961 which was reported in G. Venkata Sastri and Sons v. Rahilna Bi (A.I.R. 1962 Madras 111. See (1961) 74 L.W. 701 (FB) at 709 & 711 (D.B.)/Ed.) In that case this Court held that the security bond would amount to a charge created by the party in favour of the officer of the Court and as such, the provisions of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to it. The learned counsel pointed out that on appeal, the Supreme Court overruled the above decision in the case reported in Abdul Jabbar v. Venkata Sastri (A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1147). Therefore, the counsel argued that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable for creation of such a charge. The counsel for the appellants argued that when a charge is created. It is similar to the creation of simple mortgage, simple mortgage does not require original document to be submitted and the charge need not be registered. Therefore, without production of the original documents, a charge can be created over the immovable property. The counsel also submitted that while creating a charge, no transfer of title is involved; whereas in case of creating mortgage, there is a transfer of proprietary right. Since the charge is not a mortgage, it does not require production of original documents or registration. Therefore, by submitting certified copies, the charge can be created. 5. The counsel also submitted that while creating a charge, no transfer of title is involved; whereas in case of creating mortgage, there is a transfer of proprietary right. Since the charge is not a mortgage, it does not require production of original documents or registration. Therefore, by submitting certified copies, the charge can be created. 5. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.6.2001 has passed an order that, “The security shall be tested in the usual manner by the Registry which shall, after examining the same and ensuring that the title is in order, direct acceptance.” 6. It is also submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that there is a single document for the entire 75 grounds, but the security offered is only, for 10 grounds and therefore, the original document cannot be produced and deposited as it is required to sell the properties to other persons. Under the Transfer of Property Act, where there is a common parent document with respect to a large extent of property and when number of persons purchased different portions of the property, the original deed will be given to the person who purchases the largest area and that can be referred to by others as and when necessary. Therefore, in this case also since the security is to be executed only for 10 grounds, it can be done by producing certified copy of the title deed relating to the entire extent of 75 grounds. 7. The arguments of the counsel for petitioner is that the office has objected, because of the decision of this Court in O.S. Appeal Nos. 65, 70 and 71 of 1956, dated 28.7.1961, reported in G. Venkata Sastri and Sons v. Rahilna Bi (A.I.R. 1962, Madras 111); The counsel submitted that the decision was overruled by the Supreme Court; The conclusion of the Madras High Court that the provisions of the Transfer Property Act applies to the furnishment of security bond was rejected by the Supreme Court; Therefore, the objection raised by the office cannot be sustained. 8. The questions that were decided by the Supreme Court in the said decision in Abdul Jabbar v. Venkata Sastri (A.I.R. 1969, Supreme Court 1147) are, 1). is the security bond attested by two witnesses? 2). If not, is it invalid? 3).. 4).. 8. The questions that were decided by the Supreme Court in the said decision in Abdul Jabbar v. Venkata Sastri (A.I.R. 1969, Supreme Court 1147) are, 1). is the security bond attested by two witnesses? 2). If not, is it invalid? 3).. 4).. The Supreme Court answered the questions as follows: “As to the second question, the argument on behalf of the respondents is that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act attracts Section 59 and that a charge can be created only by a document signed, registered and attested by two witnesses in accordance with Section 59 where the principal money secured is Rs. 100 or upwards. The High Court accepted this contention following its earlier decisions in Viswanadhan v. Ms. Menon, I.L.R. (1939) Mad 199 = ( AIR 1939 Mad 202 ) and Shiva Rao v. Shanmughasundaraswami, ILR (1940) Mad 306 = ( AIR 1940 Mad 140 ) and held that the security bond was invalid, as it was attested by one witness only. We are unable to agree with this opinion. Further, it was held that, the security bond was not required to be attested by witnesses. It was duly registered and was valid and operative.” That is, the decision of the Supreme Court in that case is that the view of the Madras High Court that the security bond would be invalid when it was attested only by one witness was not acceptable. The Supreme Court has overruled the Madras High Court decision only on that aspect. 9. The purpose of direction to furnish security is only to enable the plaintiff to realise the money if and when he wins ultimately. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows: “Where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge.” 10. As per this Section, when the immovable property is made security for the payment of money to another, that transaction amounts to a charge over the property. When such a charge is created, all the provisions which apply to a simple mortgage apply to such charge. When the charge is created by act of parties, the specification of the property indicates a personal liability: the remedy of the holder of charge is only a charge against the property; where there is in addition a personal covenant. A charge-holder has therefore a power of sale of the property only. It is not exercisable against the transferee for value without notice. 11. It is clear from the decision in Gobinda Chandra Pal v. Dwarka Nath Pal, reported in 1908, 35 Calcutta 837, where a compromise decree was passed and immovable property specified therein was hypothecated for realisation of the money, it is an instance of charge made by act of parties. By joint operation of Section 100 of Transfer of Property Act and Order 34, Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, the law as to simple mortgage applies to a charge. 12. A charge need not be in writing, if it is in writing, it has to be registered. It is true, there is no particular mode of creating charge and it also need not be in writing. But if it is reduced to writing, registration is necessary, in case of non-testamentary instrument, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, which applies to rights not only in, but also to immovable property. This has been decided by a number of cases by this Court. One such case is reported in Viswanadhan v. M.S. Menon (A.I.R. 1939 Madras 202 = (1938) 48 L.W. 628 ), wherein it was held as follows: “Section 100 applies all the provisions of the Act with regard to a simple mortgage to a charge, unless a particular provision is incompatible with a charge. One such case is reported in Viswanadhan v. M.S. Menon (A.I.R. 1939 Madras 202 = (1938) 48 L.W. 628 ), wherein it was held as follows: “Section 100 applies all the provisions of the Act with regard to a simple mortgage to a charge, unless a particular provision is incompatible with a charge. Registration is surely not incompatible. Section 17, Registration Act requires a charge for Rs. 100 or upwards to be registered, and by virtue of S. 4, T.P. Act. S. 59 has not to be read as being supplemental to S. 17, Registration Act. If the words in S. 100, T.P. Act, are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning, we are of the opinion that S. 59 cannot be excluded.” Since furnishing security is creation of charge over the immovable property and since it is in writing, because the charge has to be created to the Court only in writing, it requires registration. That is a because, all the provisions of simple mortgage are applicable to such charges as per Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. The security to be effective must be by way of registered simple mortgage. Usually instead of creating a simple mortgage by executing a registered deed of charge for the purpose of furnishing immovable property security, normally the procedure of deposit of title deeds is followed. Mortgage by deposit of title deeds cannot be created unless the originals are produced and deposited, that is the reason why the office insists upon production of the originals. If there is any difficulty in submitting the original documents of title deeds, the defendant can execute a simple mortgage by a registered mortgage deed. Under such circumstances, the original documents need not be submitted, certified or xerox copy of the documents can also be produced along with the registered simple mortgage deed. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner that the office be directed to accept the certified copies of title deeds, valuation certificate, encumbrance certificate etc., for executing immovable property security cannot be granted. 14. It is clarified that in order to create a charge in respect of immovable property, it is necessary that the same is required to be embodied in a document; and when it is more than Rs. 100/- it should be a registered document. 15. 14. It is clarified that in order to create a charge in respect of immovable property, it is necessary that the same is required to be embodied in a document; and when it is more than Rs. 100/- it should be a registered document. 15. Therefore, immovable property security can be furnished either by producing and submitting the original Title deeds along with a bond or by execution of a registered simple mortgage. That is immovable property security cannot be furnished by submitting a certified copy of xerox copy or the title deeds. 16. In the result, the application is dismissed.