Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt Hostile Witness Cannot Erase a Bribe Demand Already Made on Record: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Ration Officer Three Decades of Unpaid Wages: Supreme Court Strips Gannon Dunkerley of Control Over Sick Company's Assets, Appoints Administrator to Pay Workers by August 2026 Gram Nyayalaya Cannot Touch Family Court's Maintenance Orders — Allahabad High Court Draws the Line Caste Abuse Allegation at Village Jatra Is Counter-Blast to Earlier Machete Attack: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite SC/ST Act Bar Contributory Negligence | Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Madras High Court Air Force Can't Punish Officer After Criminal Court Sets Him Free: Supreme Court Overturns 30-Year-Old Dismissal Written Statement Without Affidavit of Admission/Denial: Non-Est Filing or Curable Defect? Delhi High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench Bank's Negligence Killed Cheque Bounce Case Before It Could Begin: Supreme Court Rules Section 138 Remedy Lost Due to Stale Cheques Bank Letting Your Cheques Go Stale Is Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Benefit Of Probation Act Available Even If Offender Is Sentenced Solely To Fine: Supreme Court Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court CBSE Cannot Cancel Class XII Results Based on Similar MCQ Answers Alone Without Any Report of Malpractice From Examination Centre: Orissa 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