The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the limitation periods and the consequences of not exercising the right of redemption within the prescribed time limits in mortgage transactions.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) IA No. 7463/2004 (O-VII, R-11 CPC by Defendant No. 1) the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession, recovery of damages, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

( 2 ) THE plaint states that the three plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Shri amar Dass being his sons. The suit has been filed in respect of the immovable property bearing No. 399-400 (Old No. 204), Khari Baoli, Delhi whereby the plaintiffs claim that they have become absolute and lawful owners in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs also seek recovery of possession against defendant No. 1 apart from the relief of recovery of damages / mesne profits and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded as a party in the suit on the ground that he is a tenant in occupation of a part of the suit property in pursuance of a Rent Note dated 12. 10. 1964 and is also the real younger brother of late Shri Amar Dass, the father of the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE suit property is stated to have been earlier owned by late Shri Ram Dhan batra in pursuance of a registered document dated 09. 07. 1957. Shri Batra passed away on 17. 10. 1962 leaving behind his widow Smt. Shanti Devi and son, i. e. , defendant No. 1 herein.

( 4 ) SMT. Shanti Devi and defendant No. 1 are together stated to have executed a registered Mortgage Deed dated 20. 08. 1969 in favour of late Shri Amar Dass in respect of the suit property to secure an amount of Rs. 7,500/- advanced to them. Subsequently, Smt. Shanti Devi also passed away.

( 5 ) IT may be noticed that the Mortgage Deed has been executed in Urdu and English translation of the same has been filed with the plaint. The amount of rs. 7,500/- is stated to have been required for business purposes and to secure the same, the suit property is stated to have been mortgaged temporarily without possession . The amount was repayable within a period of 3 years along with interest at 62 paise per hundred per month. The relevant clauses of the mortgage Deed are as under:"1. That the possession will remains ours. We shall pay the interest amount regularly every month. The total principal amount shall be paid within the above-mentioned period. If the total principal amount is not paid as promises or the interest amount remains unpaid for 3 months, then the mortgagee shall have the right to retrieve his total principal amount along with the interest due through a court case or issue of a decree till the total payment at the rate of (62) paise per month per hundred, in lump sum, from the mortgaged property and other properties of every types belonging to the deponents and our heirs, and ourselves along with the litigation charges;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. In case the property (whole or some portion) is acquired by the government and some compensation is given, then the mortgagee shall have the first right on it, and if there is a shortfall, then he will retrieve it from our property of every kind;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) A perusal of the Mortgage Deed, thus, shows that what was created was a simple mortgage without possession. Clause 4 has also been reproduced herein-above only in view of the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that mortgagee has the first right of compensation. It is appropriate to clarify here itself that what the clause stipulates is that in case of acquisition, the mortgagee s right is protected inasmuch as the outstanding would be recovered from the compensation and any shortfall would be retrieved from the property of the mortgagor of every kind.

( 7 ) THE plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that there was a clear agreement and understanding between the parties that for all purposes and intentions, the possession of Shri Chaman Lal in the suit property may be treated and accepted as possession of late Shri Amar Dass in his capacity as a mortgagee in the suit property. This averment is clearly inadmi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document