The court reaffirmed that redemption rights hinge on compliance with mortgage conditions; failure to meet obligations nullifies claims to recover property.

J U D G M E N T

The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment made in A.S. No. 232 of 2006 dated 10.06.2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry.

2. The appellant is the 1st defendant. The suit was filed for the relief of redemption of mortgage. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and the plaintiff filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Now, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows: -

The suit is seeking for the relief of redemption of mortgage under the mortgage-cum-conditional sale deed dated 07.10.1987 and for delivery of possession of the suit property, along with the recovery of mesne profits. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks a decree for specific performance directing the 1st defendant to reconvey the suit property as per the terms of mortgage-cum-sale deed dated 07.10.1987 and to deliver possession along with the mesne profits.

4. The 3rd defendant, while he was working in the Barathi Mills, Pondicherry, under the industrial workers' scheme, was allotted the suit property by the Government of Pondicherry as a tenant and was later conferred ownership of the same by virtue of a lease-cum-sale deed dated 31.07.1987. As per the terms of the said document, the suit property cannot be transferred for a period of 10 years.

5. The 3rd defendant executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- on 07.10.1987. As per the terms of the said deed, the 1st defendant agreed to reconvey the suit property in favour of the 3rd defendant on payment of Rs.35,000/-, failing which, on expiry of 11 years, the patta could be transferred in the name of the 1st defendant. On the date of execution of the said document, the value of the property was Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequent to the mortgage-cum-conditional sale deed dated 07.10.1987, the 1st defendant took possession of the suit property and leased it out to several persons from time to time. At present, the 2nd defendant is in occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff is the grandson of the 3rd defendant through his son Pasupathi, who is also the power agent representing the plaintiff.

6. On 14.10.1996, the 3rd defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the settlement deed, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the suit property from the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant in person through his power agent, requesting him to receive Rs.35,000/- and to permit the redemption of the property. However, the 1st defendant asserted that he was entitled to remain in possession for a period of 11 years.

7. During October 1998, the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant through his power agent to redeem the property, but the 1st defendant did not come forward to reconvey the property as promised. Hence, on 06.10.1998, the plaintiff sent a telegram tendering the mortgage money of Rs.35,000/- in order to redeem the suit property, and also sent a legal notices on 07.10.1998 and 08.10.1998 to the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. The defendants replied stating that the transaction was an outright sale with a condition to repurchase, and that they had become the absolute owners of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for redemption. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he has also included an alternative prayer for specific performance.

8. The written statement filed by the defendants, in brief: -

It is true that the Government of Pondycherry execut