Question

Which of the following is NOT an essential of a mortgage under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

• A. It is a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property.
• B. It is for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan.
• C. It is always in respect of an existing debt.
• D. It is in respect of an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability.
• A. When the debtor deposits with the creditor the title-deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage, and no registered instrument is required under section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, as in other forms of mortgage.
• B. When the debtor deposits with the creditor the title-deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the implication of law (that there exists a contract between the parties to create a mortgage) is excluded, and a registered instrument is required under section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.
• C. When the debtor deposits with the creditor the title-deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the implication of law (that there exists a contract between the parties to create a mortgage) is excluded, and a registered instrument is required under section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act.
• D. When the debtor deposits with the creditor the title-deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the implication of law (that there exists a contract between the parties to create a mortgage) is excluded, and a registered instrument is required under section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act.
• A. A simple mortgage.
• B. A mortgage by conditional sale.
• C. A usufructuary mortgage.
• D. An English mortgage.
• A. 30 years.
• B. 12 years.
• C. 20 years.
• D. 3 years.
• A. The deposit and the document both form integral parts of the transaction and are essential ingredients in the creation of the mortgage.
• B. The deposit alone is not intended to create the charge and the document, which constitutes the bargain regarding the security, is also necessary and operates to create the charge in conjunction with the deposit.
• C. The implication of law (that there exists a contract between the parties to create a mortgage) is excluded by their express bargain, and the document becomes the sole evidence of its terms.
• D. The deposit and the documents do not form integral parts of the transaction and hence they are not essential ingredients in the creation of the mortgage.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify which of the given options is not an essential element of a mortgage as defined under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The definition and essentials of a mortgage are provided in Section 58(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Section 58(a) defines a mortgage as "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."
Let's analyze the options based on this definition:

(A) This is a core essential of a mortgage.
(B) This is also a core essential, describing the purpose of the mortgage.
(D) This correctly states that a mortgage can secure an existing debt, a future debt, or the performance of an engagement leading to a pecuniary liability.
(C) This statement claims that a mortgage is "always" for an existing debt. This is incorrect, as the definition explicitly includes "future debt." Therefore, this is NOT an essential of a mortgage.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The statement that a mortgage is always in respect of an existing debt is incorrect because a mortgage can also be created to secure a future debt.

Answer 2

The question tests whether the four listed features are all essentials of a mortgage as defined in Section 58(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or whether one of them misstates that definition. The right way to attack this is to set the statutory language for what a mortgage secures directly against each option and see which one narrows that language incorrectly.

1. Option A: A mortgage is, at its core, "the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property." This is the opening clause of Section 58(a) itself and is a genuine essential, since without a transfer of interest in identified immovable property there is no mortgage at all, only a personal promise.
2. Option B: The purpose clause of Section 58(a) requires that the transfer be "for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan," among other purposes. This describes why the interest is transferred and is a genuine essential.
3. Option C: This option claims the debt secured is "always" an existing debt. Section 58(a) does not use the word "always" in that restrictive sense; it lists existing debt, future debt, and a pecuniary engagement as alternative things a mortgage can secure. Locking the definition to only an existing debt directly contradicts the statute, so this cannot be treated as an essential; it is in fact a false statement about the law.
4. Option D: This restates the statute almost verbatim, that the security can be for "an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability." That is exactly what Section 58(a) says, so this is a genuine essential.

Since A, B and D each track the statutory text of Section 58(a) correctly, they qualify as essentials of a mortgage. Option C alone narrows the definition to only an existing debt, which the statute never says and which excludes future debts and pecuniary engagements that the law expressly recognises.

So the correct answer is Option C, "It is always in respect of an existing debt."

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the correct legal position regarding a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds as per the Transfer of Property Act.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The provided passage from {State of Haryana v Narvir Singh} clearly explains the legal framework for this type of mortgage, also known as an equitable mortgage.

The passage states: "The essence of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is handing over by a borrower to the creditor title-deeds of immovable property with the intention that those documents shall constitute security..."
It further clarifies the registration requirement by referencing Section 59: "...Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that every mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds can be effected only by a registered instrument... no registered instrument is required under Section 59 thereof as in other classes of mortgage."
This means that the act of depositing title deeds with the intent to create security is sufficient to create the mortgage, and it is a specific exception to the general rule requiring a registered instrument. The law implies a contract of mortgage from this act. Option (A) perfectly encapsulates this legal position. The other options incorrectly state that a registered instrument is required or that the implication of law is excluded.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is created by the act of depositing the deeds with intent to secure a debt, and unlike other mortgages, it does not require a registered instrument.

Answer 4

This question can be answered by walking through the statutory chain that governs a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds step by step, from how it is created to how it is enforced.

1. Option A: Section 58(f) creates this form of mortgage by the simple act of a debtor depositing title-deeds with a creditor with intent to create security. Once that intent and deposit are shown, the law itself implies a contract of mortgage between the parties. Section 59, which otherwise makes registration compulsory for a mortgage, expressly carves out this class, so no registered instrument is needed here. This is precisely how the three provisions fit together, so this option correctly states the law.
2. Option B: This claims the implication of law is excluded and a registered instrument is required under Section 59. That reverses the statute; Section 59 is the very provision that exempts deposit-of-title-deeds mortgages from the registration requirement it imposes on other mortgages, not the provision that imposes registration on this class.
3. Option C: This also claims a registered instrument is required, but cites Section 58(f) as the source of that requirement. Section 58(f) is the definition clause that creates this type of mortgage by deposit and says nothing about compulsory registration, so this option misattributes a registration requirement to the wrong section and gets the substance wrong as well.
4. Option D: This claims registration is required under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act. That provision governs documents that themselves create or extinguish rights in immovable property and would only bite if the parties chose to record additional terms in a separate memorandum; it has no bearing on the basic deposit-of-title-deeds mortgage created by conduct alone, which needs no instrument at all.

Tracing Section 58(f) through to Section 59 shows that the deposit itself, coupled with intent, is enough to create the mortgage without any writing, unlike every other class of mortgage recognised by the Act.

So the correct answer is Option A.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
This is a direct question asking which type of mortgage's legal provisions are applied to a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, according to Section 96 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The answer is found by directly referencing the text of Section 96 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Section 96 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is titled "Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds". The section states:
"The provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds."
This means that for matters like the rights and liabilities of the parties, the procedure for foreclosure or sale, etc., a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is treated similarly to a simple mortgage. In a simple mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold in the event of non-payment, which is the primary remedy available in a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds as well.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The provisions applicable to a simple mortgage also apply to a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.

Answer 6

Section 96 borrows the rules of one specific type of mortgage and extends them to a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. The fastest way to find which type is to compare what remedy a mortgagee gets under each of the four types listed and see which one matches what a deposit-of-title-deeds mortgagee actually gets.

1. Option B, mortgage by conditional sale: here the mortgagee's remedy on default is to have the sale become absolute, effectively taking the property itself rather than suing for its sale through court. A deposit-of-title-deeds mortgagee has no such conditional ownership arrangement, so this is not the matching provision.
2. Option C, usufructuary mortgage: here the mortgagee is given possession of the property and repays the debt out of rents and profits, with no personal covenant to pay and no right to sue for the money or for sale. A deposit-of-title-deeds mortgagee never takes possession merely by holding the deeds, so this does not match either.
3. Option D, English mortgage: here the mortgagor transfers the property absolutely to the mortgagee, subject to a proviso to reconvey on repayment, and the mortgagee can sell without court intervention in some circumstances. A deposit-of-title-deeds mortgagee gets no absolute transfer and no such self-help sale power, so this does not match.
4. Option A, simple mortgage: here the mortgagor stays in possession, personally binds himself to repay, and the mortgagee's only remedy on default is to obtain a decree for sale of the property through court. This is exactly the position of a deposit-of-title-deeds mortgagee, who holds only the deeds, never possession, and can only get the property sold through court on default.

Since the remedy and the possession position under a deposit-of-title-deeds mortgage line up with a simple mortgage and with none of the other three, Section 96 borrows precisely the simple-mortgage provisions.

So the correct answer is Option A, "A simple mortgage."

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the statutory time limit (period of limitation) for filing a lawsuit to recover money that is secured by a mortgage on immovable property.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The answer is found in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Specifically, we need to refer to the article governing suits related to mortgages.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Article 62 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, provides the limitation period for such suits.


Description of suit: To enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property.
Period of limitation: Twelve years.
Time from which period begins to run: When the money sued for becomes due.
The 30-year period mentioned in option (A) typically relates to a suit for foreclosure by a mortgagee (Article 63(a)) or for redemption of a mortgage by a mortgagor. The 3-year period is generally for simple money suits not based on a mortgage.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The period of limitation for a suit to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage is 12 years.

Answer 8

The Limitation Act, 1963 sets different limitation periods for different kinds of property and money suits, and each of the four numbers in this question corresponds to a real category. Matching each option to its actual category shows which one belongs to a suit for enforcing payment secured by a mortgage.

1. Option D, 3 years: this is the general period for ordinary suits on a contract or for money due, where there is no charge on any specific property, essentially the territory of a suit for money payable and consented accounts. A mortgage suit is not this kind of unsecured claim, since it is backed by a charge on immovable property, so 3 years does not fit.
2. Option A, 30 years: this long period belongs to a mortgagor's suit for redemption of a mortgage or recovery of possession of immovable property mortgaged, and to certain suits by or against the government. It reflects how long an owner is given to reclaim mortgaged property, not how long a creditor is given to enforce payment.
3. Option C, 20 years: a period of this length does not attach to a suit to enforce payment secured by a mortgage under the Schedule to the Limitation Act; it does not correspond to the relevant article at all and can be set aside.
4. Option B, 12 years: Article 62 of the Schedule fixes exactly this period for "to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property," running from when the money sued for becomes due. This is precisely the suit described in the question.

Once the 3-year and 30-year periods are recognised as belonging to unsecured money suits and redemption suits respectively, and the 20-year figure is seen to have no matching article at all, only the 12-year period under Article 62 remains as the answer.

So the correct answer is Option B, "12 years."

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question sets up a specific scenario: a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is followed by a written memorandum that contains the terms and conditions of the bargain. This memorandum, as per the passage and the question, requires registration. The question asks which statement is INCORRECT in this specific scenario.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage distinguishes between a simple memorandum that merely records the deposit (which doesn't need registration) and a memorandum that contains the terms and conditions of the loan (which does need registration). The question deals with the second type. When the parties reduce their bargain to writing in a document that requires registration, that document becomes the constitutive instrument of the mortgage, not just an evidence of it.


(A), (B), and (C): These statements correctly describe the legal effect when the bargain is reduced to writing. The written document becomes an integral part of the transaction (A), the charge is created by both the deposit and the document (B), and this express written contract overrides the simple contract implied by law (C). The document becomes the primary evidence of the mortgage.
(D): This statement claims that the deposit and the document are NOT integral parts and NOT essential ingredients. This is the direct opposite of the legal position described in (A), (B), and (C). In the scenario where the memorandum contains the bargain and requires registration, it becomes an essential and integral part of creating the mortgage. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Since the memorandum contains the actual terms of the mortgage and requires registration, it is an essential ingredient. The proposition that it is not an essential ingredient is therefore incorrect.

Answer 10

The passage this question is built on describes what happens once the parties, after depositing title-deeds, go on to record their bargain in a memorandum that requires registration under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act. The operative language there is that such a document, once it embodies the actual terms of the security, stops being a mere record and becomes part of how the mortgage itself is constituted. Testing each option against that language settles the question.

1. Option A: the passage treats the deposit and the registered document as together forming the transaction, both being integral to how the security is actually created once the terms are reduced to writing. This matches the passage and is a correct proposition.
2. Option B: the passage explains that the deposit alone does not, in this scenario, carry the whole bargain; the document spells out the terms of the security and works together with the deposit to create the charge. This too matches the passage and is correct.
3. Option C: the passage notes that once the parties choose to put their bargain in writing, the earlier presumption that the law simply implies a contract from conduct gives way to their express agreement, so the written document becomes the operative record of the terms. This matches the passage and is correct.
4. Option D: this claims the deposit and the document do not form integral parts of the transaction and are not essential. The passage says the opposite in this exact scenario, that both the deposit and the registered memorandum are integral and essential once the memorandum carries the bargain. This directly contradicts the passage.

Since A, B and C each track what the passage says about a memorandum that embodies the terms of the mortgage, and D flatly reverses it, D is the proposition that does not hold up.

So the correct answer is Option D.