IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Madhavan Nair, J.
S.Rm.M.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar late a minor by guardian Muthayi Achi alias Chittal Achi and Anr.
Versus
His Highness Maharana Shri Dowlat Singjee, Thakore Sahib of Limbdi represented by his agent Mr. V.C. Gopalaratnam, Advocate
Decided On : 01.02.1938
EQUITABLE MORTGAGE - SUB-MORTGAGE - VALIDITY - DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS - REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 17 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 58(F) - LIMITATION ACT, ARTICLE 132 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT - SECTION 19 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 2, RULE 2 - RES JUDICATA - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the Maharatta Thakore Sahib of Limbdi, filed a suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and is also entitled to be put in possession thereof, based on the purchase of the property from the Official Assignee. He also claimed a mortgage decree for sale of the properties for realization of a sum of one lakh of rupees, being a proportionate part of the mortgage amount due on the properties. The defendants, who had purchased the properties in execution of a decree obtained by them against the mortgagors, contended that the equitable mortgage and the sub-mortgage alleged by the plaintiff were not true and valid and were not binding on them. They also contended that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by limitation and also under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the equitable mortgage and the sub-mortgage were true and valid and were binding on the defendants. It also held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had acknowledged the mortgage debt within 12 years from the date of the mortgage. The Court further held that the suit was maintainable and that the amendment of the plaint was proper. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaint mentioned equitable mortgage in favour of 3rd defendant is true and valid in respect of the plaint mentioned properties and is binding on defendants 1 and 2 and 5 to any and to what extent. 2. Whether the plaint mentioned in sub-mortgage in favour of plaintiff is true and valid. 8. If not (if the plaintiffs sale referred to in issue 7 is not valid), is the plaintiff entitled to enforce his claim, if any, under the plaint mentioned equitable mortgage to any and what extent against the plaint mentioned properties in the hands of defendants 1 and 2? 9. Is the claim set up in issue 8 in time? 10. Is the claim set up in suit barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C., by reason of the filing of C.S. No. 3772 of 1922 of the Bombay High Court? 11. Is the suit as framed not maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An equitable mortgage can be created by a deposit of title deeds without any written memorandum, but if there is a written memorandum, it must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 2. A sub-mortgage of an equitable mortgage can be created by a re-deposit of the title deeds of the original mortgagor with the sub-mortgagee. 3. An acknowledgment of the mortgage debt within 12 years from the date of the mortgage saves the suit from being barred by limitation under Article 132 of the Limitation Act. 4. A suit for sale by a prior mortgagee against a person claiming under a title derived from a subsequent mortgage is maintainable. 5. An amendment of the plaint can be allowed if it does not set up a new case or ask for a relief not originally asked for in the plaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Madhavan Nair, J.
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in O.S. No. 1 of 1929.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is H.H. The Maharatta Thakore Sahib of Limbdi. In the appeal the question is raised as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sale of the suit properties in enforcement of an alleged sub-mortgage of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, granted to him by the third defendant of the suit properties. These, called the Vadavoor lands, are situate in the Trichinopoly District. These and various other properties situated in Madras and Bangalore belonged to Messrs. Tawker & Sons, a well-known firm of jewellers in Madras. They mortgaged the title-deeds of all these properties to Messrs. Nagarseth & Sons, the third defendant in the present suit, in 1916 for a sum of over 18 lakhs of rupees borrowed from time to time for carrying on their family business. Exs. M, M-1 and M-2 are the documents which were deposited as the title-deeds of the properties. Of these Ex. M is only a judgment and, strictly speaking, is not a title-deed. In August, 1922, Nagarseth instituted C.S. No. 3772 of 1922 in the Bombay High Court (Ex. D-4 being the plaint) against Messrs. Tawker & Sons(who were defendants 1, 2 and 3), for the enforcement of the equitable mortgage. This suit was not finally decreed till 1928. Meanwhile, on the 17th January, 1925, Messrs. Tawker & Sons were adjudicated insolvents and the Official Assignee of Madras was made a party in that suit as the fourth defendant. In the course of the suit the present plaintiff was also made a party as the fifth defendant at the instance of the plaintiffs in that suit (the present third defendant) - see Ex. J dated 17th April, 1925--on the ground that they had made an "equitable sub-mortgage" in his favour of the title-deeds of the immovable properties situate at Madras, Trichinopoly and Bangalore mortgaged to them. He then lodged what is called a counter-claim against Nagarseth & Sons for Rs. 18,23,517-6-3 which he averred was secured by deposit with him of the title-deeds mentioned in the plaint and he prayed that the properties covered by the title-deeds be sold and the proceeds applied in satisfaction of his debt. See Ex. N. It may be mentioned here that the third defendant used to obtain moneys from the present plaintiff for lending them to the Tawkers. The present defendants 1 and 2, the latter representing the P.M.A. Estate as receivers, claiming right to the Vadavoor properties involved in the present suit as purchasers of the same in the course of execution proceedings in C.S. No. 196 of 1921 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, applied on the 12th April, 1928, to be made parties in C.S. No. 3772 of 1922. Thereupon the present plaintiff and the third defendant (fifth defendant and plaintiffs in S the Bombay suit) agreed to omit from that suit their claim to I the Vadavoor lands, the present suit properties, and to bring a suit for the same within three months in Madras. In the circumstances, the learned Judge declared that he made no order on the application (see Ex. O, dated the 18th June, 1928); and defendants 1 and 2 were not made parties to the suit. The learned Judge stated in Ex. O that the plaintiff and the fifth defendant (that is, the Nagarseths and the present plaintiff) agreed to omit from their suit their claim as regards theVadavoorvillage and to file a suit within three months inter alia against the applicants) that is, defendants land 2) to enforce their claim against the said Vadavoor village in the Court of local jurisdiction. In July, 1926, shortly after his appearance in the suit, an interim decree was passed by consent as between the Nagarseths and the present plaintiff. That decree (see Ex. L) directed the Nagarseths to pay him the sum of Rs. 19,26,232. No relief was granted with respect to the submortgage, but it was decalred that:
This decree is without prejudice t
AI
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.