Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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