1. SHABBIR AHMED, J.--- Short point involved in the appeal is whether an equitable mortgage was created by the deceased lady by presenting the title deed. Mr. Siddiqi tried to argue that equitable mortgage has been created by deposit of title document unaccompanied by memorandum of deposit of title document by son. His argument was based on clause (f) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, pertaining to equitable mortgage, it says that- 'Whether a person delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create security thereon, the transaction is called mortgage by deposit of title deed: Provided where mortgage by deposit of title deed is to be created in favour of the Banking Company as defined in Banking Tribunal Ordinance, the same may also be created by an entry in the record-of-rights against the entry relating to such immovable property ."
2. The undisputed facts are that the document of title was deposited by son of the lady, who was not authorized by the lady to create charge over the property. We may observe that the deposit of tile deed by owner or his authorised agent is sufficient to, create charge, writing is not mandatory requirement. Mr. Siddiqi tried to argue that son for all intent and purposes is agent of the lady, therefore, mortgage was created by deposit of title deed. We are unable to subscribe to the view canvassed before us.
3. No doubt, son is blood relation of the lady but in absence of any authorization, the son or any blood relation cannot be termed to be an agent. Therefore, we are of the view that document deposited by an unauthorised person will not create charge over the property. The appellants' own case is 0- icit son is not agent as admitted I-j the plaintiff's witness Saleem Ahmed Khan. Consequently, the appeal is merit less and is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.