JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Ramanagara (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”) in O.S.No.112/2009 filed by her against the present respondents herein arraigning them as defendants. The suit was filed for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.26,16,250/- from the defendants with interest there upon at Rs.15% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for the sale of mortgaged property. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the first defendant (respondent No.1 herein) had undertaken to procure some land for the plaintiff under an Agreement dated 07-06-2007 in which regard, he had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the appellant/plaintiff on the date of the Agreement. The first defendant further received another sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the plaintiff, thus in total, the first defendant had received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-from the appellant/plaintiff by promising her that he would procure 25 acres of land to her for the purchase within a period of six months from the date of the Agreement. The first defendant had also agreed to repay the said advance amount with interest at the rate of Rs.15% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of repayment in the event of his failure to adhere to the time line. He also agreed to pay the damages of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-for the loss suffered by the appellant(plaintiff). 3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that since the first defendant has failed to perform his part of the promise and did not procure any land within the time agreed upon, she requested him to return the advance amount of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-taken by him. However, he failed to repay the said amount. The plaintiff has also contended that the second defendant had guaranteed the repayment of the amount payable by the first respondent and had handed over all the original title deeds of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff as a security for the repayment and thus had created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. 4. Since the defendants failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff instituted a suit against them in O.S.No.112/2009 in the Trial Court. 4. Since the defendants failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff instituted a suit against them in O.S.No.112/2009 in the Trial Court. The said suit came to be partly decreed by the impugned judgment holding that the defendant No.1 has to pay a sum of Rs.23,17,500/-to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was also liable to pay future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum on Rs.20,00,000/-from the date of the suit till its realisation. The plaintiff’s prayer with regard to the Mortgage of the suit schedule property and the relief prayed against the second defendant came to be rejected. It is against the said portion of the decree wherein the plaintiff’s prayer against the second defendant and alleged Mortgage of the suit schedule property was rejected, the present appeal has been filed by her. 5. The Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to with the ranks they were holding before the Trial Court respectively. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in his argument submitted that, the Trial Court observed that there was no mortgage because of the non-registration of the alleged mortgage, as such, it refused to grant any relief against the second defendant though prayed by the plaintiff in her plaint. Hence drawing the attention of this Court to Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “T.P. Act” for brevity), learned counsel further submitted that registration of a mortgage which is in the form of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is not required in the eye of law. In that regard, learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Narvir Singh and another reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 105. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further submitted that even though the suit schedule property is said to be situated in a Village at a distant place from the City of Bengaluru, still, the mortgage with respect to the said property can be created in the City of Bengaluru, which is a notified City. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further submitted that even though the suit schedule property is said to be situated in a Village at a distant place from the City of Bengaluru, still, the mortgage with respect to the said property can be created in the City of Bengaluru, which is a notified City. On the said point, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. S.M. Essence Distilleries Private Limited reported in I.L.R. 1993 Kar. 2016. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that the Trial Court, however, committed an error by not awarding interest from the date of payment of the amount made by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1, but by awarding interest only from the date of institution of the suit, as such, the interest is required to be awarded from the date the amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1. 11. Inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 did not appear when the matter was taken up for final arguments and did not address his arguments. 12. Even according to the plaintiff, there is no documentation with respect to the alleged creation of Mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds. When there is no documentation with respect to the alleged creation of Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, the question of its registration or the payment of stamp duty would not arise. Section 58 of the T.P. Act speaks about the concept of ‘Mortgage’. Section 58 (a) which defines ‘Mortgage’ reads as below: “A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. Section 58 (a) which defines ‘Mortgage’ reads as below: “A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee, the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed.” Section 58 (f) of the T.P.Act speaks about the Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds which reads as below: “where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras [and Bombay], and in any other town which the [State Government concerned] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immoveable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.” A reading of Section 58(f) of the T.P. Act would make it clear that ‘Mortgage’ can also be created by deposit of title-deeds, provided, the said act of deposit of title-deeds must be made in a notified town which notification is required to be issued under Section 58(f) of T.P. Act by the concerned State Government. 12. The Trial Court though has rejected the prayer made against defendant No.2 on the alleged creation of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds for the reason that the said mortgage was not registered, but the basic question required to be seen is, whether in the instant case such a ‘mortgage’ in the form of deposit of title-deeds has been created in a place that is notified under Section 58 (f). Once the said question is answered, holding that the creation of alleged mortgage was as per Section 58(f) of the T.P. Act, in a notified town, it is thereafter the subsequent question as to the necessity of creating such a mortgage supported by some document in writing or the requirement of registration of any such document would arise. Therefore, the first point to be ascertained is, whether the alleged mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds was made in a notified town. Therefore, the first point to be ascertained is, whether the alleged mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds was made in a notified town. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that the mortgage was created in ‘Bengaluru’ which is undisputedly a notified town under Section 58(f) of T.P. Act. In that regard, when the plaint filed by the plaintiff in the Trial Court is perused, it can be noticed that nowhere the plaintiff has stated in her plaint that the alleged creation of Mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds was at ‘Bengaluru’. She has only stated in paragraph 7 of her plaint that she accepted the offer of the defendant and on the next date i.e. on 21-12-2007, the defendants brought the original title deeds and deposited them with the plaintiff with an intention to create a charge on the property and as a security for repayment of a sum of Rs.22,75,000/as under taken by them. Thus, the plaintiff in her plaint has not stated as to in which place the original title deeds were deposited with her by the defendants. In her evidence as PW1 also, the plaintiff has only reiterated the very same plaint averments in its verbatim by stating that on 21122007, the defendants brought the original title-deeds and deposited them with her with an intention to create a charge on the property and as a security for the repayment of the amount. Thus, even after considering the fact that her said statement has not been denied or disputed from the defendants’ side, still it cannot be inferred that the said act of deposit of title-deeds was in ‘Bengaluru’ and ‘Bangalore alone’. Thus, even after considering the fact that her said statement has not been denied or disputed from the defendants’ side, still it cannot be inferred that the said act of deposit of title-deeds was in ‘Bengaluru’ and ‘Bangalore alone’. In view of the fact that the defendants were residents of a different place called Thalakuppe Village, Shanmangala Post, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara, Bangalore Rural District and even though the plaintiff claims herself to be a resident of Bengaluru, but in the absence of any specific pleading and evidence that the defendants came to the house of the plaintiff at Bengaluru and deposited the title-deeds or in the absence of any document about the deposit of the title deeds and also in the absence of any statement anywhere in the plaint or in the absence of her statement that the said place of deposit of title-deeds was at a notified town, it cannot be inferred that the said alleged deposit of title-deeds was at a notified town. As such, in the absence of the plaintiff able to establish that the said creation of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds was in any of the towns notified by the State Government, it cannot be held that there was a creation of Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. Therefore, without going into the other questions as to whether the alleged creation of mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds requires any right or any registration, suffice it to say that, the plaintiff since has failed to prove the creation of alleged mortgage in the form of deposit of title-deeds, at the threshold itself, it cannot be held that there was any mortgage in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the alleged suit schedule property. Therefore, even though the Trial Court has assigned a different reason for rejecting the prayer made against defendant No.2 with respect to the alleged creation of mortgage of the suit schedule property, the conclusion given by the Trial Court that the suit against the second defendant with regard to the mortgage of the suit schedule property deserves to be rejected, cannot be found fault with. 13. 13. The next point of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was with respect to the alleged non-awarding of interest on the claim made, from the date of the alleged payment of money to the first defendant till the date of payment by the defendants. 14. Even according to the plaintiff, the total amount paid to the defendant No.1 in two instalments of Rs.10,00,000/- each, was in total a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had agreed to repay the amount together with interest at the rate of Rs.15% per annum in case of his failure to procure the plaintiff the land though promised. The Trial Court in its impugned judgment after considering that the principal amount was Rs.20,00,000/-has also considered the claim made by the plaintiff for interest at a sum of Rs.3,17,500/-at the rate of Rs.15% per annum till the date of filing of the suit. As such, the decree passed by the Trial Court which is for a sum of Rs.23,17,500/-includes not just the principal amount but upto date interest, as calculated by the plaintiff herself, till the date of filing of the suit. It is for the said reason, the plaintiff in her plaint has prayed for granting the interest only from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of realisation of the amount, but not from a retrospective date. Therefore, since the Trial Court has already considered and awarded interest till the date of filing of the suit, as prayed by the plaintiff, question of awarding interest once again by the appellate Court does not arise. As such, the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also not acceptable. 15. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) is with respect to the rejection of her claim for damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by the Trial Court. As such, the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also not acceptable. 15. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) is with respect to the rejection of her claim for damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by the Trial Court. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently submitted that since the damage is quantified, the Trial Court was bound to award damages as well, I am of the view that merely because the appellant says that the damage was quantified, but at the same time, it cannot be ignored of the fact that, the plaintiff has also claimed interest at the rate of Rs.15% per annum from the defendants and the said interest was awarded by the Trial Court till the date of filing of the suit. As such, when already parties have agreed that in case of default by the defendants, what would be their liability and had agreed to pay the interest to the plaintiff on the principal amount, then, once again compelling them to pay the damages without there being any proof of damage caused to the interest of the appellant/plaintiff, which in the opinion of this Court is not shorter than a penalty. As such, in the absence of any specific proof of the damages said to have been incurred by the plaintiff, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly not awarded damages, as prayed. 16. The grounds raised by the appellant/plaintiff for challenging the impugned judgment since could not be able to be established by her and since no grounds have been shown or proven to interfere in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : [i] The appeal is dismissed; [ii] The judgment and decree dated 26-06-2010 passed in O.S.No.112/2009 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Ramanagara, is hereby confirmed; In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Misc.Cvl.14859/2010 does not survive for consideration. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court records to the concerned Trial Court, without delay.