an oral mortgage is not conceivable and since, a mortgage deed is a compulsorily registerable document and in the absence of any such deed, the contention that there was an oral mortgage could not be accepted and the suit was dismissed. In an appeal before this court, in its appellate jurisdiction, the court proceeded to hold, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court as well as decisions of the Rangoon and Rajasthan High courts, that even if an oral mortgage could not be enforced in a court of law, it would be open for the plaintiff to recover possession on the strength of his title, and therefore, proceeded to consider the suit not as being over, for redemption of mortgage, but for recovery of possession and refund of money and consequently, had found favour with the plaintiff’s case and had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for possession and also directed the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-borrowed from the defendant. Execution having been taken out of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner is before this court, contending that the suit originally framed was
