The liability of a mortgagor under an equitable mortgage is not limited to a specific amount but extends to the entire liability of the borrower secured by the mortgage, including principal, interest, and other charges.

Dr. M. K. Shanna, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendants Canara Bank (defendant No. 1 and M/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited (defendant No. 2) seeking for passing of a decree for redemption of mortgage of property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has averred in the plaint that in consideration of grant of certain credit facilities in favour of M/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited, the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff created the mortgage of her property bearing No. B^2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi by way of deposit of original title deeds. It is further averred that the aforesaid mortgage is only to secure the liability of defendant No. 2-borrower only upto a limit of Rs. 24 lacs. The plaintiff in her plaint has sought for grant of the following reliefs:

(A) Pass a decree directing the defendant No. 1-bank to disclose the amount due and to give accounts of the amount due against Term Loan No. 5/82 in the name of defendant No. 2 along with interest amount and the rate of interest upto an upper limit of Rs. 24 lacs. (b) Grant the requisite/prescribed time to the plaintiff to deposit the same in this Hon be Court. (c) Direct defendant No. 1 to deliver to the plaintiff all documents in their possession relating to mortgaged property including the title deeds upon the plaintiff depositing the said amount in this Hon ble Court. (d) Any order/relief this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of case may also be passed. (e) Costs of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 entered appearance in the suit and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not entitled to redemption of mortgaged property unless she pays the entire liability of the borrower inclusive of the principal amount, interest, cost and other charges thereon and that the property in question cannot be redeemed merely upon payment of a sum of Rs. 24 lacs.

( 4 ) ON pleadings of the parties, this Court by order dated 18. 9. 1995 framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the liability of the plaintiff under the document dated 14. 12. 1982 is restricted only to the tune of Rs. 24 lacs ? (2) Whether the defendant is liable to return the documents on deposit of the amount of Rs. 24 lacs ? (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 24 lacs? If yes, from which date and at what rate ? (4) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ?

( 5 ) AS a matter of fact, the decision in the present suit revolves around interpretation of the document dated 14. 12. 1982 evidencing deposit of title deeds by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid document is the only document executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the Term Loan No. 5/82 granted by it to defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiff, the said document clearly stipulated that the plaintiff would be responsible to the Bank only to the extent of upto Rs. 24 lacs for the said term loan and that the aforesaid limit of Rs. 24 lacs was to be the upper most limit of the responsibility of the plaintiff including interest on such term loan and/or any other money payable by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that she had guaranteed repayment towards the aforesaid loan to the total limit of Rs. 24 lacs only.

( 6 ) THE case of defendant No. 1 on the other hand is that on 14. 12. 1982 the plaintiff created an equitable mortgage of her property bearing No. B-42, Eastern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, by deposit of the original title deeds and that the amount assured under the said mortgage was to cover/secure the entire liability of the borrower, defendant No. 2, inclusive of the principal loan amount of Rs. 24 lacs and all amounts towards interest including any outstanding by way of loans, over draft, discount of bills, cheques, etc. The defendant No. 1 pleaded that the sum ass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document