owner(s). In that case, the plaintiff and his brothers were joint tenants under a deed of settlement. The deed of settlement was kept in the custody of the brother. Upon the brother‟s death, plaintiff discovered that he had deposited the deed with the defendant to secure a loan. The deceased had deceitfully got a stranger to pose as the other joint owner and upon that misrepresentation the defendant granted the loan and retained the deed. The issue for the determination of the court was whether the deposit of the title deed operated to sever the joint tenancy thereby making plaintiff and defendant tenant in common. The issue was answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff‟s action to recover the deed of settlement without paying off the advance failed. The court held that based on the principle of potio est positio possidentis (the law leans in favour of the person in possession), the mortgagee was entitled to retain possession of the deed. Collateral Purpose The doctrine of collateral purposes stems from the discretion Parliament gave judges power to make such other order as they may deem meat. If the property is situate in any of the States created out of the former Western Region, recourse should be made to section 28 of the Property and Coveyancing Law 1959 which empowers the court to either sell the property or make such other order as it deems fit. The section provides that on the application of a joint owner, a judge may either order a sale of the disputed property and share the proceeds among the joint owners, or make any such order as the court deems fit. Taking advantage of this discretion, judges have formulated the doctrine of collateral purpose. By this doctrine, if a joint owner convinces the court that there is a secondary of collateral purpose