BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Mercy - Appellant
Versus
Desan - Respondent
C.R.P(MD) No. 2324 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
Decided on : 13-09-2021
Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Order 34 Rule 8 - Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 61 - Transfer of Property Act – Section 62 - Usufructuary mortgage - Suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage - Redemption and recovery of possession - One had entered into usufructuary mortgage and handed over possession of his property to mortgagees/defendants and his brothers - Defendants committed acts of waste the mortgagor/ plaintiff filed O.S. on file of I Additional District Munsif Court, for redemption and recovery of possession and Court had passed a preliminary decree directing plaintiff to deposit mortgage amount - Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners are assignees of decree in O.S. from original plaintiff – Said one, had entered into an usufructuary mortgage with predecessors of respondent and had handed over possession of property to mortgagees - Whether there is any time limit for Usufructuary Mortgagor to seek redemption – Held, In case of mortgage other than usufructuary mortgage, mortgagee can file an application to pass a final decree that mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof be sold, and proceeds thereof be paid into Court and applied in payment of what is found due to the defendant, and the balance, if any, be paid to the plaintiff or other persons entitled to receive the same – Court are of opinion that although by reason of preliminary decree in suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage, Court may fix time for payment of amount declared due but default in depositing such payment would not debar him from a right to redeem the mortgaged property – Court answer questions framed to hold that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, right to seek redemption would not arise on date of mortgage but will arise on date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to mortgagee or deposits in Court, mortgage money or balance thereof - Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable - In view of revision stands allowed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ORDER :
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 19.07.2012, in I.A.No.239 of 2011 in O.S.No.172 of 1973 passed by the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
One K.Chellaiyan Nadar had entered into usufructury mortgage and handed over possession of his property to the mortgagees/defendants SamuelAsari and his brothers. Since the defendants committed acts of waste the mortgagor/ plaintiff filed O.S. No. 172 of 1973 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for redemption and recovery of possession and the Court had passed a preliminary decree dated 15.07.1976 directing the plaintiff to deposit the mortgage amount of Rs.50/- on or before 15.09.1976. Against the judgment and decree the mortgagees/defendants filed A.S.No.103 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and the said appeal was dismissed on 10.08.1977. After dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff K.Chellaiyan Nadar assigned the decree in favour of the revision petitioners by a registered deed of assignment registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kollankode on 08.11.1976. The plaintiff along with the petitioners made the deposit of Rs.50/- on 18.03.2011 vide challan No. 146 and the final decree application was numbered as I.A.No. 328 of 2011 in O.S.No.172 of 1973 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai along with the final decree application, I.A.No. 239 of 2011 was filed to condone the delay in depositing the amount. The petition to condone delay was dismissed on 19.07.2012 on the ground that the huge delay was not explained.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the assignees of the decree in O.S.No.172 of 1973 from the original plaintiff K.Chellayyan Nadar. The said K.Chellayan Nadar, had entered into an usufructuary mortgage with the predecessors of the respondent on 19.12.1961 and had handed over the possession of the property to the mortgagees. The plaintiff K.Chellayyan Nadar, had filed a suit for redemption in O.S.No.172 of 1973, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and the suit came to be decreed in his favour on 15.07.1976. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.172 of 1973, the predecessors of the respondent/defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.103 of 1977, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai. The said appeal was dismissed on 10.08.1977. After the dismissal of the appeal, the original plaintiff K.Chellayan Nadar assigned the judgment and decree in favour of the Revision Petitioners, by a registered deed of assignment, registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kollankode on 08.11.1976.
4. Thereafter, the original plaintiff along with the petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.328 of 2011 for passing a final decree. Though no time limit is prescribed by any statute for making deposit pursuant to the preliminary decree for redemption of usufructuary mortgage / final decree application as per Order 34 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners had due to misconception filed a petition to condone the delay which was not at all necessary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that as per law no time limit is prescribed for filing a suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage and no such time is prescribed under any statute for the mortgagor. The period of limitation starts to run only from the date on which deposit is made and not from the expiry of the period prescribed in the preliminary decree. The trial Court had infact fixed the period of two months granting time for the respondent to file appeal and as per law, no time limit is prescribed for deposit of mortgage amount.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that Order 34 Rules 7 and 8 do not confer any right upon the usufructuary mortgagee to apply for a final decree like in other mortgag
The right of the mortgagor to redeem the property does not get extinguished due to non-payment of the mortgage money within the time specified by the Court, and in the case of a preliminary decree fo....
In usufructuary mortgages, the limitation for final decree applications starts only upon the deposit of the mortgage amount, not from the preliminary decree.
(1) Right of usufructuary mortgagor to redeem property does not get extinguished due to non-payment of mortgage money within time fixed by Court. (2) Mortgagee of an usufructuary mortgage would not b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 in the context of a usufructuary mortgage, as we....
Once a mortgage, always a mortgage and it is always redeemable.
In mortgage redemption cases, a final decree can stand even if a preliminary decree is absent, provided the substantive rights and principles of justice are satisfied without prejudice.
The right of a usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession continues until the mortgage money is paid, and the limitation does not start until then.
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.