Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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