Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

A usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely due to the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage" – High Court Overturns Lower Court Decrees in Land Redemption Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on property law pertaining to the rights of redemption in usufructuary mortgages, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts that previously recognized the respondent's ownership of the disputed land by prescription.

The appeal, RSA-821-1993, brought by the legal heirs of Jagat Ram against Rachpal Singh & Others, challenged the lower courts' decrees on the basis that the respondent had not rightfully acquired ownership by merely the passage of time without redemption of the mortgage. The core legal argument turned around the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Sections 58 and 60, and Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with the right of redemption of immovable property.

The case originated when Rachpal Singh claimed ownership of land that had been mortgaged in 1942-43 by Jai Karan to his son Suram Chand, who upon his death in 1981, allegedly willed it to Singh. The appellants contested that neither Jai Karan nor his successors had redeemed the land, and consequently, by efflux of time, Singh claimed ownership.

The key issues deliberated in court included whether the mortgage deed was genuine, the validity of the will, the rights of the appellants to challenge the possession, and fundamentally, whether the passage of 30 years without redemption extinguishes the right to redeem the property.

Justice Alka Sarin, presiding over the matter, provided a comprehensive legal analysis, citing numerous precedents including the landmark Supreme Court judgments that reinforced the doctrine "once a mortgage, always a mortgage," establishing that no time limit can extinguish the right to redeem a mortgage. The Court pointed out that:

"The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) begins to run when the right to redeem or recover possession accrues."

"In case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed for redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of the mortgage but will arise when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee the mortgage money."

Justice Sarin emphasized that the claims for ownership by the respondent due to the mere passage of time without any act of redemption were legally untenable.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The suit filed by Rachpal Singh was dismissed, reaffirming that the right to redeem a usufructuary mortgage remains with the mortgagor indefinitely, unless extinguished by payment or a specific act of redemption.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

Jagat Ram (deceased) through LRs vs. Rachpal Singh & Ors

Latest Legal News