SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1913 Supreme(Mad) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Adusumalli Suryanarayana
Versus
Vallurapalli Sriramulu
Decided On : 20 March, 1913

The rights of a decree holder are complete and unaffected by subsequent acquisition of the equity of redemption in a property.

Headnote:

Decree - Mortgage - Interpretation of rights of decree holder and equity of redemption

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff purchased a decree on a mortgage and later acquired the equity of redemption in the property. He sought to recover half the amount of the mortgage on the security of the property from the defendant. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only half the amount he paid for purchasing the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The lower Courts upheld the defendant's contention, but the higher court disagreed. The court held that the plaintiff's right as a decree holder was complete before his purchase of the equity of redemption and could not be affected or curtailed by it. The court modified the decree of the lower courts, giving the plaintiff a decree for the whole amount sued for and costs throughout.

Issues: Interpretation of rights of decree holder and equity of redemption, calculation of interest, and time for redemption

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's purchase of the equity of redemption was subsequent to his purchase of the decree on the mortgage, and his right as a decree holder was complete before the purchase of the equity of redemption, thus not affected by it.

Final Decision: The plaintiff was granted a decree for the whole amount sued for and costs throughout, with interest calculated at 6 per cent and a redemption period until the 30th September 1913. The plaintiff was also granted a decree for a sale in default.

JUDGMENT

1. The facts found are that there was a decree for Rs. 750 on a mortgage against the interests of two persons in the mortgaged property Nagabhusanam and Punnamma. The plaintiff took a transfer of the decree from the decree-holder for Rs. 324. Afterwards the equity of redemption in the property of Nagabhushanam t1 and Punnamma passed by transfers respectively to the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to recover half the amount of the mortgage on the security of Nagabhushanams share in the hands of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only half the sum that he actually paid for purchasing the decree and not half the amount of the decree.

2. The lower Courts uphold this contention but we think that they were wrong in doing so. The case is not one where one of two mortgagors discharges an encumbrance binding on both. In that case the mortgagor doing so could not recover from his co-mortgagor more than a proportionate shave of the amount actually paid by him. Here the plaintiffs purchase of the equity of redemption was subsequent to his purchase of the decree on the mortgage. This right as decree holder was complete before his purchase of the equity of redemption and could not be affected or curtailed by it.

3. We modify the decree of the Courts below by giving the plaintiff a decree for the whole of the amount sued for and costs throughout. Interest from the date of the Munsiffs decree will be calculated at 6 per cent. The time for redemption will be till the 30th September 1913. The plaintiff will have a decree for a sale in default.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top