the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court gravely erred in holding that the plaint averments were not sufficient to conclude that there was a valid mortgage entitling him to sue for a mortgage decree. It was submitted that the plaint, read as a whole, alongwith the Agreement, the Proof Affidavits and evidence of PW-1/appellant and DW1/respondent clearly evince the fact that a loan was secured by the respondent by mortgaging the schedule property. The amount in the Agreement pertains to loan transactions for which the mortgage was created by the Respondent. It was submitted that in such circumstances, the findings in the First Impugned Order are highly erroneous. 12. It was submitted by learned counsel that the Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the present case is one where the respondent agreed to create a mortgage by depositing the title deed. There was an actionable debt and the respondent had fully intended that