A.ALAGIRISWAMI, M.H.BEG, P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Dattatreya Shanker Mote – Appellant
Versus
Anand Chintaman Datar – Respondent
Ratio Decidendi:
A charge created by act of parties, including one embodied in a compromise decree that is duly registered, is governed by Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA"), as it constitutes security on immovable property without amounting to a mortgage, attracting provisions applicable to a simple mortgage so far as may be. (!) [1000285470006][1000285470007][1000285470039][1000285470040]
The proviso to Section 100 TPA protects a subsequent transferee for consideration without notice of the prior charge, preventing enforcement of the charge against "any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge"; "transfer of property" under Sections 5 and 6 TPA includes transfer of an interest in immovable property, such as by simple mortgage under Section 58 TPA, and "property in the hands of" encompasses the mortgagee's interest therein (including intangible rights), without requiring physical possession. (!) (!) (!) [1000285470011][1000285470012][1000285470013][1000285470015][1000285470016][1000285470017][1000285470020][1000285470021][1000285470047][1000285470048][1000285470049][1000285470050][1000285470051][1000285470058][1000285470059] (!) (!) (!)
Constructive notice under Explanation I to Section 3 TPA requires proper registration under the Registration Act, 1908 (including correct entry in indices under Sections 51 and 55), such that omission due to Sub-Registrar's inadvertence precludes notice despite Book 1 entry.[1000285470004][1000285470005][1000285470041][1000285470042][1000285470043] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Where a subsequent simple mortgagee advances consideration without actual or constructive notice of a prior charge (verified via diligent search of relevant indices and records), the mortgage takes priority over the charge; Section 48 TPA does not aid the prior charge-holder, as a charge is not a "transfer" creating competing rights therein.[1000285470001][1000285470002][1000285470023][1000285470024][1000285470025][1000285470030][1000285470044][1000285470066][1000285470067] (!)
Doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA does not apply to properties charged by compromise post-suit institution and not directly in issue therein, absent pending execution proceedings at subsequent mortgage creation.[1000285470003][1000285470068]
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J
(1) IN Both these appeals by certificate the question of competing priorities between a charge created by a decree and a subsequent simple mortgage has to be determined. The appellants had filed Civil Suit No. 741 of 1938 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,34,000.00 with interest from respondents Nos. 1 to 7. On 31/03/1941 a compromise decree was passed under which a charge was created for the decretal amount on three pieces of property belonging to the said respondents Nos. 1 to 7. These properties comprise a house in Shukrawar Peth and Kakakuva Mansion in Budhwar Peth both at Poona and a chawl in Kalyan. This decree was registered on 7/04/1941, but due to inadvertence the charge on the Kakakuva Mansion in Budhwar Peth at Poona was not shown in the Index of registration. The significance of this omission will become evident when the full facts are narrated. Thereafter on 27/06/1949 the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 mortgaged the Kakakuva Mansion to the plaintiff-respondent No. 14 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The respondents created a further charge on 13/09/1949 in favour of the said plaintiff-respondent No. 14 for Rs. 50,000.00. On 7/07/1951 a charge w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.