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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Nisha W/o Dinesh Kumar Bora - Appellant
Versus
Sulochana W/o Late Shanmugam - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 14 of 2022
Decided On : 10-06-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Sneha

Mortgages executed by a guardian on behalf of minors are enforceable only if proved to benefit the minors, and agreed interest rates must be followed in recovery claims.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 6, and 8; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 34 - Mortgage and enforcement of promissory notes - Mortgage deeds executed by a guardian on behalf of minors are not enforceable unless done for their benefit. The appellant sought recovery based on mortgage deeds and promissory notes but faced denial of claims by the trial court. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Mortgage validity - Execution of mortgage deeds by a mother on behalf of her minor children requires proof of benefit to the minors for enforceability. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Interest rate determination - Trial Court reduced interest from 24% to 6% and dismissed claims for promissory notes for lack of proof, needing adherence to agreed rates of interest. (Paras 19-24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed recovery of loans against a mortgage of property executed by the respondent, who was the mother of minor defendants. Interest payments ceased post-2014, leading to legal action after alleged defaults. (Paras 3-4)

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the mortgage legitimacy but confirmed reduced interest terms while also dismissing parts of the claim related to the promissory notes. (Paras 26-27)

Issues: The key issues included the enforceability of mortgages on behalf of minors, interest rates applicable, and the ability to recover amounts based on promissory notes absent sufficient proof. (Paras 6-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without evidence of the minors' benefit, the mortgage would not bind them, while reasserting the necessity for proof in statutory presumptions related to promissory notes. (Paras 18-24)

Result: The appeal is partly allowed, with cost implications outlined. (Paras 26-27)

Table of Content
1. facts of the mortgage and loans (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendants contest validity of claims (Para 4 , 5)
3. issues framed for determination (Para 6 , 7)
4. determines the enforceability of loan agreements concerning minors. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. legal principles on guardianship and mortgages (Para 11 , 12)
6. clarifies legal obligations of a natural guardian over joint family property. (Para 14 , 16)
7. court's reasoning on mortgage and interest (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. issues around promissory notes (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
9. final decree and orders (Para 26)
10. final ruling adjusts mortgage terms and affirms portions of the trial court's decree. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

1. Original Suit O.S.No.4328 of 2018 (on the file of the XVII City Civil Court, Chennai) is for recovery of money based on the mortgage deeds and promissory notes. The Trial Court partly allowed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 10.08.2021.

2. This Appeal Suit is preferred by the plaintiff as against the disallowed portion of the relief prayed.

3. Averments in the plaint:-

The first defendant Mrs.Sulochana, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children/the 2nd and 3rd defendants, mortgaged the suit schedule mentioned property with the plaintiff on 17.03.2013 and borrowed Rs.2,00,000/-. She agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The title deeds of the suit schedule property were deposited with the plaintiff as collateral security for the loan advanced. Subsequently, the defendants borrowed a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.11.2014 and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. Both the mortgage deeds (Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2) were duly registered . Later, the first defendant borrowed Rs.2,25,000/- on 12.08.2016 and Rs.75,000/- on 15.09.2016. For the above said borrowings, she executed pro-notes (Exs.A3 and A4) on the respective dates for the respective amounts. Towards the mortgage amount, the defendants paid interest till December 2014 and thereafter, wilfully neglected to pay interest or to discharge the loan amount. Hence, after causing notice through an Advocate on27.07.2018, the suit been laid for the following relief:-

(a) To pass a Preliminary Decree for mortgage against the defendants for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation at 24% per annum directing them to pay the amount failing which to pass final decree or sale of mortgaged property for realisation of the amount within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(b) In default of payment on or before a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, directing the sale of the mortgaged properties described in the schedule hereunder and the application of the proceeds in payment of the decreed amount.

(c) To pass a decree directing the defendants to pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation in respect of two demand promissory note dues, due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

(d) Directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit;

(e) Grant such other suitable relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and property in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

4. Averments in the Written Statement: -

The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by her children, who are the defendants 2 and 3. In the written statement, the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants denied, Execution of mortgage deed for borrowing money denied. Likewise, the execution of pro-notes and borrowal of Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.75,000/- on two different dates also denied.

5. According to the defendants, they got the suit schedule property through a release deed. They are the joint owners of the property. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were minors at the time of executing the alleged mortgage deed. No prior permission obtained from the Court before creating encumbr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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