As per case facts, the appellant advanced a loan to the respondent, which was secured by mortgages and promissory notes. Upon respondent's default, an Agreement was executed, providing the appellant ... with title deeds as security. The respondent subsequently failed to execute a sale deed or repay the balance. The appellant filed a suit seeking a mortgage decree, which was granted by the Single Judge. However, the Division Bench set aside this decree on appeal, concluding no mortgage was proven, noting the appellant was unrepresented. The appellant then sought to restore the appeal, arguing his counsel's authorization was limited. The question arose whether the Agreement legally constituted an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and if the appellant was unfairly unrepresented in the High Court appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's decree, holding that the Agreement did create a valid equitable mortgage. The Court found the Division Bench erred in its findings and in accepting the respondent's unsubstantiated claims due to the appellant's non-appearance. The interest rate was reduced to twelve percent, and costs were imposed on the appellant for the procedural missteps.