Ranjan Ray reported in 1937 ILR 486 (FB),it was held that “it would seem that fundamentally the document of October 9, 1934 created in favour of the person described as the mortgagee a right over or in respect of specified property, and having regard to the precise terms of the document it is equally apparent that it conferred rights over or in respect of specified property which ordinarily a mortgage would not have by mere deposit of title deeds, that is to say, simply by the physical handing over of titled deeds without further agreement between the parties other than that those title deed should be security for the money lent. Upon the assumption, therefore, that the document of October 9, 1934, was a mortgage deed within the definition contained in s.2(17), it follows, in my view, that it falls within the expression “mortgage deed” as used in sub-head (c) of Article 62 of the Bengal Stamp (Amendment) Act of 1922...........Once one comes to the conclusion as I do, that the document of October, 9, 1934, was a mortgage deed, it seems to be the irresistible conclusion that the document of April 12, 1935, was a transfer of the kind contemplated by the provisions of Art.62(c)”. In the instant case assignment of debt is made by the Transferor/Mortgagee which is secured by deposit of title deed and the promissory note and not by way of legal mortgage. Hence Article 62(c) will not apply to this case. The document in question is chargeable to duty under Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”
