Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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