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 the deed ought to be the security for the debt. The Single Judge had also noted that the respondent in his evidence as DW1, had agreed to7 deposit the title deed to create an “equitable mortgage” for the loan amount obtained by him from the appellant. Thus, the Single Judge had rightly decreed the appellant's suit and passed preliminary decree of mortgage. 13. It was further submitted that the Division Bench in the First Impugned Order had erred in holding that there was no stipulation to pay interest in the Agreement and that therefore the rate of interest as granted by the Single Judge could not have been so granted. It was submitted that various loans were advanced by the appellant to the respondent categorically stipulating interest at the rate of 36% p.a. on repayment. Once this