that the cheques were placed in the hands of the
respondents only as a security for repayment of the loan
and not towards the repayment of the loan. As regards
the claim about the mortgage of the property, the
impugned order apparently discloses and the fact is not
disputed that no mortgage deed was executed and
registered in accordance with the provisions of law.
However, drawing attention to the testimony of the
plaintiffs, it is sought to be contended that the fact
that the property was under mortgage to the respondents
as security for repayment of the loan was not disputed.
Even assuming so, merely because the debtor has
mortgaged a property as security towards the repayment
of the loan, that itself will not prohibit the creditor
to encash the cheques which were placed in his hands
towards the repayment of the loan. Undisputedly, no
written agreement was placed on record disclosing that
the cheques were placed in the hands of the respondents
merely as a security for repayment of the loan. It is
also not the case of the appellants that the appellants
have otherwise established their claim that the cheques
were handed over to the respondents towards the security
for repayment of the loan and the same were not supposed
