Skip to main content

Usufructuary mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time

Citation : Harminder Singh Vs Surjit Kaur, Civil Appeal  No.89 Of 2012

Date of Judgment/Order : 27th April, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum : Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian. J.

Background

One Gulab Singh – mortgaged his share of land in favour of Rajinder Singh on 02.05.1921 with possession. The defendants inherited the estate of Gulab Singh whereas Rajinder Singh - mortgagee died issueless and his rights were inherited by his wife – Rajinder Kaur. Rajinder Kaur sold her mortgagee rights to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 18.06.1979.

Since the mortgage was not redeemed by the mortgagor within a period of 30 years, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she had become the owner after the extinguishment of the mortgage rights and for permanent injunction.

The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Such decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well but in Second Appeal, the suit was dismissed relying upon the judgment of this Court in ‘Sampuran Singh Vs. Niranjan Kaur’, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 679.

Judgment

Agreeing with the Appellate court and while dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that  the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ‘Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.’ reported in AIR 2008 P&H 77 held that once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage. Such judgment was affirmed by this Court in ‘Singh Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.’ reported in (2014) 9 SCC 185.

The maxim ‘once a mortgage always a mortgage’ means that there can no covenant that modifies the character of the mortgage agreed between the parties that would stop the mortgagor to redeem his property back on payment of the principal and respective interests. It is the connotation of the fact that the mortgagee will always remain as mortgagee and can never become an owner. All acts he commits in order to exalt himself as an owner are perceived to be a clog on redemption.

The doctrine of equity of redemption is expressed in this maxim and it is an exception to the principle, ‘the agreement of the parties overrides the law.’ The maxim, established in 1681 by Lord Nottingham in the case of Harris v. Harris is basically to safeguard the mortgagor’s right to redemption. In the case of Noakes & Co v. Rice, the maxim was interpreted by Lord Davey as ‘That a mortgage cannot be made irredeemable and that a provision to that effect is void’. Therefore, one of the manifestations of this maxim is that the clog on the equity of redemption is void. No matter whether the provision that makes a mortgage irredeemable is there in the mortgage deed itself or any collateral but connected transaction outside the mortgage contract, it is void to the extent to which it prevents the mortgagor from getting his whole of the property back on repayment of the mortgaged money.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more