Kailasam, J.-The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. As a mortgagor, the filed O.P. No. 18 of 1964 and deposited the amount due under a usufructuary mortgage and preyed for redemption under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The usufructuary mortgage was originally executed by one Ramachandra Iyer, the original owner of the suit property under Exhibit A-2, dated 2nd March, 1924, in favour of one Kauvery Achi. Ramachandra Iyer later sold the suit property to the father of the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1, dated 18th December, 1929. Defendants 1 and 2, who succeeded to the interest of the usufructuary mortgagee under a will executed by Kauveri Achi on 30th September, 1942, did not resist the suit for redemption, but consented to a decree for redemption. Defendants 3 and 4, who were in possession as tenants inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee, resisted the suit on the ground that they were entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The third defendant claimed to be cultivating the property under Kauveri Achi by a registered lease deed till her death, and then, under defendants 1 and 2. There is no dispute that defendants 3 and 4 were tenants under the usufructuary mortgagee.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession from defendants 3 and 4. On appeal, the first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court holding that after redemption of the usufructuary mortgage by the mortgagor, it is not open to the defendants 3 and 4 to claim any rights as cultivating tenants. On a second appeal preferred by defendants 3 and 4 (tenants), Ramanujam, J., held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhu v. Ramdeo1, the tenant under the usufructuary mortgagee can acquire rights and is entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, and found against the mortgagor, who subsequently redeemed the mortgage. The plaintiff mortgagor has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the tenants under the usufructuary mortgagee are entitled to the rights of a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act as against the mortgagor also.

4. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the rights of a tenant under the usufructuary mortgagee as against the mortgagor, who subsequently redeemed the mortgage under the general law and to decide whether the rights under the general law has been in any way altered by the special legislation.

5. It is well established that no person can confer on another a better title than he himself has. The usufructuary mortgagee’s interest lasts only as long as the mortgage has not been paid off. Therefore, on redemption of the mortgage, the title of the mortgagee comes to an end, and the rights of any person, who derived title such as a lessee, would also come to an end, and with the expiry of the mortgagee’s title, when the interest of the mortgagee as a lessor is determined, the right of the lessee under him also terminates, and under the general law, the lessee’s interest cannot subsist beyond the mortgagor’s interest. The Courts have recognised one exception to this rule under section 76 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, and that is, when the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property and manages it as a person of ordinary prudence and leases the property, the lessee may be entitled to continue in possession even after the termination of title of the mortgagee in possession. This principle is applicable to agricultural lands.

6. This exception in the case of agricultural lands is stated by the Supreme Court in All India Film Corporation v. Sri Raja Gyannath1, in the following terms:

“.... acts done bona fide and prudently in the ordinary course of management, may bind even after the termination of the title of the mortgagee in possession. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document