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
| 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
AI
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.
Validity of sale by de-facto guardian for discharging debt.
Promissory note to operate as an acknowledgement of liability.
Natural guardians can manage minor's undivided interests in joint family property without court permission if it serves the minor's welfare.
A natural guardian of minor children can manage and sell undivided interests in joint family property without court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, provided it serves a lega....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the restriction in Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not apply to the undivided interest of a minor in joint....
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.