1. Usufructuary mortgage — Suit for ownership by prescription and permanent injunction — Dispute over mortgagee's claim to ownership of the mortgaged property. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1062
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Bir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kanwar Singh (D) Th. LRs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8994 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 37997 of 2013)
Decided On : 28-08-2018
A mortgagee cannot claim ownership of the property through prescription.
Headnote:
Mortgagee - Property Ownership - A mortgagee cannot claim ownership of the property through prescription, as established by the judgment in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 185
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, claiming through the original mortgagee, filed a suit seeking ownership of the property by prescription and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, denying ownership but affirming the permanent injunction. The High Court affirmed the grant of injunction and granted liberty to the respondents for right to redemption in separate proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mortgagee cannot claim ownership by contending that the right of the mortgagor has been foreclosed, citing the judgment in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 185.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as a mortgagee, could claim ownership of the property in-question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 185, which established that a usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a usufructuary mortgagee can claim ownership of the property by contending that the mortgagor's right to redeem has been foreclosed. (Para 3 )
3. The court found the issue covered by precedent, which prohibits a usufructuary mortgagee from claiming ownership solely due to the passage of 30 years. (Para 4 )
4. A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to a declaration of ownership merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Can a usufructuary mortgagee claim ownership of the property based on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage?
No, a usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that they have become the owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
Banumathi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant claims through the original mortgagee under the usufructuary mortgage. The appellant-mortgagee filed a suit claiming ownership of the property in-question by prescription and also sought for permanent injunction in favour of the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction. On appeal, the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant, claiming through the mortgagee, cannot claim right to ownership over the property in-question. However, the first appellate court affirmed the permanent injunction in favour of the appellant in the capacity of the appellant as a mortgagee. The same view was affirmed by the High Court. However, the High Court granted liberty to the respondents to work out their remedy for right to redemption in separate proceedings. While doing so the High Court affirmed the grant of injunction in favour of the appellant.
3. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, being the mortgagee, can claim grant of ownership by contending that the right of morgagor has been foreclosed.
4. This issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 185 where this Court held that “A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage”.
5. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
