Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Gopal Krishan v. Anandpal Singh (D.) through LRs Deepak Singh & Others
Second Appeal No. 79 of 2011 (Indore): against the judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Sendhwa, District Barwani; Decided on 26.3.2025
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e] 1882 && èkkjk 58¼x½ ijarqd && l'krZ foØ; vFkkZr~ 'kfrZ;k Qj¨[r ukek }kjk Òwfe caèkd && D;k bls iw.kZ foØ; ekuk tk ldrk gS && caèkd foys[k esa 'kCn 'kfrZ;k Qj¨[r ukek ç;qä && foys[k dh çd`fr mä foys[k ls fofu;fer g¨xh && bl lacaèk esa e©f[kd lk{; vioftZr gS && caèkddrkZ v©j caèkdnkj dk lacaèk rRi'pkr~ Òh cuk jgrk gS && caèkd e¨pu dk vfèkdkj lekIr ugÈ g¨rk && mi;qZä foys[k iw.kZ foØ; foys[k ugÈ gS blfy, caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, okn pyus ;¨X; gS && fupys U;k;ky;¨a us xyr vfHkfuèkkZfjr fd;k fd ;g foys[k iw.kZ foØ; gS && foys[k Li"Vr% caèkd gS && okn ifjlhek d¢ vkèkkj ij xyr [kkfjt fd;k x;kA ,vkbvkj 1988 ,llh 1074] ,vkbvkj 1998 ,llh 770 rFkk ¼2014½ 9 ,llhlh 185 vuqlfjrA 1982 jkfu 395 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 18 ls 28
¼2½ ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 && vuq- 61 && laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e] 1882 && èkkjk 58¼x½ && l'krZ foØ; vFkkZr~ 'kfrZ;k Qj¨[r ukek }kjk caèkd foys[k && e¨pu d¢ fy, ifjlhek && 17-3-1969 d¨ l'krZ foØ; }kjk caèkd foys[k fu"ikfnr && ikap o"kZ i'pkr~ 17-3-1974 dks volkfur && o"kZ 2002 esa caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, okn çLrqr && fupys U;k;ky;¨a us bls iw.kZ foØ; ekuus rFkk okn le;oftZr eku dj [kkfjt djus esa xyrh dh && caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, ifjlhek 30 o"kZ g¨xh && o"kZ 2002 esa çLrqr okn iw.kZr% le; d¢ Òhrj gS] le;oftZr ughaA ¼2006½ 4 ,llhlh 484 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 29 ls 33
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 13 && laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e] 1882 && èkkjk 58¼x½ && caèkd e¨pu dk vfèkdkj && laifÙk l'krZ foØ; }kjk caèkd && ca/kddrkZ d¢ cM+s iq= }kjk caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, caèkdnkj d¨ lwpuki= fn;k && u rks lwpuki= dk mÙkj fn;k v©j u Òwfe okil gh dh && caèkddrkZ d¢ cM+s iq= }kjk caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, okn çLrqr && fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ fu'd"kZ fd vko';d i{kdkj¨a vFkkZr~ caèkddrkZ d¢ vU; iq=¨a d¢ vla;¨tu d¢¢ dkj.k okn pyus ;¨X; ugÈ && vihykFkhZ }kjk vfoÒkftr fganw dqVqac d¢ drkZ dh gSfl;r esa okn çLrqr fd;k x;k && og caèkddrkZ d¢ vU; iq=¨a dh v¨j ls okn çLrqr djus d¢ fy, l{ke gS && bl lacaèk esa dÒh d¨Ã vkifÙk ugÈ dh xà && vihykFkÊ@oknh d¢ vU; Òkb;¨a d¨ i{kdkj cuk, fcuk okn pyus ;¨X; gSA 1959 ,eih,yts 1018 voyafcrA¼iSjk 34
¼4½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 115 && focaèk && dc mn~Hkwr ugÈ g¨rk && foys[k 'kfrZ;k Qj¨[r ukek l'krZ foØ; }kjk caèkd U;kfu.kÊr fd;k x;k && ;g U;kfu.kÊr fd;k tk pqdk fd caèkd e¨pu d¢ fy, okn ifjlhek d¢ Òhrj çLrqr fd;k x;k gS && foyac d¢ lacaèk esa ç'u mn~Hkwr ugÈ g¨rkA ¼iSjk 35
¼5½ laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e] 1882 && èkkjk 58¼x½ && l'krZ foØ; }kjk caèkd && foys[k dh çd`fr caèkd dh gS] iw.kZ foØ; dh ugÈ && bls iw.kZ foØ; foys[k ugÈ ekuk tk ldrk && foØ; rc gh iw.kZ g¨rk gS tc varjd ifjlhek vFkkZr~ 30 o"kZ d¢ Òhrj jde dk Òqxrku djus esa vlQy jgrk gS && vihykFkÊ@oknh us ekspu dh ek¡x dh && çR;FkÊ dks jde lanÙk djus dks rS;kj && fupys U;k;ky;¨a us ekeys d¢ bu igyqv¨a ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k && fofèk ,oa rF;¨a dh n`f"V ls fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ fu.kZ; xyr gSa && vikLr fd, && vihy eatwj && okn fMØh fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 41
(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 58(C) Proviso -- land mortgaged by conditional sale, i.e., Shartiya Farokt Nama -- whether it can be treated as outright sale - - words Shartiya Farokt Nama used in mortgage deed -- nature of deed will be governed by said deed -- any oral evidence is excluded in this regard -- relation of mortgagor and mortgagee continues to subsist even thereafter -- right to redeem mortgage not extinguished -- since aforesaid deed is not absolute sale deed, suit for redemption of mortgage is maintainable -- Courts below wrongly held that deed is absolute sale -- deed is clearly mortgage -- suit wrongly dismissed on ground of limitation. AIR 1988 SC 1074, AIR 1998 SC 770 and (2014) 9 SCC 185 followed. 1982 RN 395 referred to. [Paras 18 to 28
(2) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art. 61 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 58(C) -- mortgage deed by conditional sale, i.e., Shartiya Farokt Nama -- limitation for redemption -- mortgage deed executed on 17.3.1969 by conditional sale -- expired after five years on 17.3.1974 -- suit filed for redemption of mortgage in year 2002 -- Courts below erred in treating it as outright sale and holding that suit is barred by time -- limitation for redemption of mortgage shall be 30 years -- suit filed in year 2002 is absolutely within time and not time-barred. (2006) 4 SCC 484 followed. [Paras 29 to 33
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 13 -- Transfer or Property Act, 1882 -- S. 58(C) -- right of redemption of mortgage -- property mortgaged by conditional sale -- notice for redemption of mortgage given to mortgagee by elder son of mortgagor -- neither notice replied, nor land returned -- suit for redemption of mortgage filed by elder son of mortgagor -- finding of Courts below that suit not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., other sons of mortgagor -- suit filed by appellant as karta of undivided Hindu family -- he is competent to sue on behalf of other heirs of mortgagor -- objection in this regard never raised -- suit is maintainable without impleading other brothers of appellant/plaintiff. 1959 MPLJ 1018 relied on. [Para 34
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 115 -- estoppel -- when does not arise -- deed Shartiya Farokt Nama adjudicated as mortgage by conditional sale -- it has already been adjudged that suit for redemption is filed within limitation -- no question arises regarding estoppel. [Para 35
(5) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 58(C) -- mortgage by conditional sale -- nature of deed is mortgage and not outright sale -- it cannot be treated as absolute sale deed -- sale becomes absolute only when transferor fails to pay amount within limitation, i.e., 30 years -- appellant/plaintiff demanded redemption -- ready to pay amount to respondent -- these aspects of matter not considered by Courts below -- judgments of Courts below are erroneous in eyes of law and facts -- set aside -- appeal allowed -- suit decreed. [Para 41
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") challenging the judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sendhwa, District Barwani in Civil Regular Appeal No.19-A/2008 whereby the learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.5-A/2002 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Khetiya, District Barwani wherein the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for redemption of Mortgage (girvi mukti) and for possession of the land in question.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and for possession of the land bearing Survey No.37/1 ad-measuring 1.60 acres, situated at village Pansemal, District-Khargone. As per pleadings, the aforesaid land in question was mortgaged by late one Shivnarayan, the father of the appellant on 17.3.1969 vide a deed named as "Shartiya Frokhtnama" with consideration of Rs.11000/- in favour of one Janki Devi, the mother of the respondents for a period of five years i.e. up to 17.3.1974. After the lapse of the said period the appellant tried to redeem the mortgage, but the respondent did not give any response, hence, the appellant, on 11.3.2022 served a notice on respondent to accept the sum of Rs.11000/- and give the possession of the land in question to the appellant. In reply to the said notice issued by the appellant, the respondent, denying the execution of such document, remonstrated that the suit land had never been mortgaged to his mother Janki Devi and it was sold to her. As such, the respondent, being son of late Jankidevi, was the sole owner of the suit property.
3. Then, the appellant/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit bearing Suit No.5-A/2002 for redemption of mortgage and possession of the suit land. the suit was contested on various grounds. In written statements, the respondents have denied all the averments of the appellant and it is contended that no deed of mortgage was executed by Late Shivnarayan, but rather it is a document of sale. Since, appellant is not the sole heir of Late Shivnarayan, he has no locus standi to file the aforesaid civil suit without impleading the other legal heirs of Late Shivnarayan as they are also the necessary parties. The suit is also hopelessly time barred, hence, not maintainable.
4. On the abovementioned pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed the issues and directed both the parties to lead their evidence. After recording and appreciating the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court, Civil Judge has dismissed the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2008.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Khetiya, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.19-A/2009 and the learned First appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of the appellant as stated in para no.1 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
6. In this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the findings of learned Courts below on various grounds. Having considered these grounds, the following substantial questions of law have been framed vide order dated 2.8.2011:
i. Whether the Courts below have committed illegality in treating the document Ex.P/1 as an outright sale deed despite overlooking to the conditions impounded in the document itself:
ii. Whether the suit as instituted can be treated as barred by limitation, despite having been instituted within the prescribed period of 30 years?
iii. Whether the suit by one of the heirs of the deceased/mortgagor, is competent for the purpose of the redemption of mortgage property?
iv. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding the suit to be bared by principle of estoppel under s
The court reaffirmed that redemption rights hinge on compliance with mortgage conditions; failure to meet obligations nullifies claims to recover property.
Mortgage rights cannot be extinguished by an unregistered document; valid legal processes are required to affect mortgage rights.
Redemption of mortgage – Mortgagor has right to redeem at any time provided his right is so extinguished by act of parties.
Redemption of mortgage – Unregistered mortgage deed – Undertaking to create a charge, in absence of a registered mortgage deed does not vest any legal interest in immovable properties.
The main legal point established is that the nature of a sale deed, the right to repurchase, and the applicable limitation for the suit are crucial factors in determining the outcome of property disp....
The intention of parties in a transaction determines its nature, and the title of the document is not solely decisive in classifying it as a mortgage by conditional sale or an absolute sale.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the terms of a document and considering the surrounding circumstances to determine the real intention of the parties....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the transaction under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the application of legal principles to determine ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
