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

1973 Supreme(Ori) 97

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, C. J.
CHANDRAMANI PRADHAN - Appellant
Versus
HARI PASAYAT - Respondent
Civil Revn.  217  Of  1972
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 19, 1973

Advocates Appeared:
H.G.Panda, P.V.Ramdas, RAMA NATIA

Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act does not compel the mortgagee to accept the amount deposited by the mortgagor for redemption.

Headnote:

Mortgagee - Mortgage Redemption - Court's interpretation of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a mortgagee, refused to accept the amount deposited by the mortgagors under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming it would not satisfy the mortgage dues. The court directed the petitioner to accept the money and deliver possession of the properties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the section does not compel the mortgagee to accept the money deposited and that the correct approach should have been for the mortgagors to institute a suit for redemption.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court could compel the mortgagee to accept the amount deposited under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the section does not provide for compelling the mortgagee to accept the amount deposited and that the mortgagors should have instituted a suit for redemption instead.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the order of the learned Munsif, and held that the mortgagee cannot be compelled to part with the mortgage security or deliver the documents relating to the mortgage under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act.

G. K. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Is the mortgagee. Opposite parties are the mortgagors. Opposite parties deposited Rs. 500/-towards the mortgage dues under Section 83 of the transfer of Property Act A notice was served on the petitioner by the court to accept this amount and to give delivery of possession of the mortgage security. The petitioner's case was that he was entitled to more money and the amount deposited would not satisfy the mortgage dues. The learned Munsif after having heard the parties directed the petitioner to accept the money deposited and deliver possession of the properties with necessary documents. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Aska, who held that no appeal lay. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif dated 7-91971.

( 2 ) THE order of the learned Munsif is wholly misconceived. Section 83 of the T. R act, so far as relevant, runs thus:-"at any time the principal money payable In respect of any mortgage has become due and before a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property is barred, the mortgagor, or any other person entitled to institute such suit, may deposit, in any Court in which he might have instituted such suit, to the account of the mortgagee, the amount remaining due on the mortgage. "

( 3 ) IT would thug be seen that the section does not make any provision to compel the mortgagee to accept the money deposited. The deposit is made only for the purpose of instituting a suit for redemption and before the suit Is filed the amount is to be deposited. When the mortgagee got notice under Section 83 of the T. P. Act he raised an objection that the amount deposited would not discharge the entire mortgage dues. He was un- willing to accent the money. The court has no power to compel the mortgagee to accept the amount

( 4 ) THE correct approach should have been that after the mortgagee refused to accept the amount the mortgagors should have instituted a suit for redemption and would have taken a plea therein that the entire mortgage dues had been deposited and the mortgage stood redeemed. At any rate, in this proceeding under section 83 of the T. P. Act the mortgagee cannot be compelled to part with the mortgage security or to deliver the documents relating to the mortgage. The order of the learned Munsif is contrary to law. He exercised his jurisdiction illegally and his order passed in exercise of power not conferred upon him under Section 83 is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) AS the petitioner is bound to succeed on merits, inordinate delay in filing the revision by pursuing the appeal is condoned.

( 6 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the learned Munsif is set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

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