Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Once A Mortgage, Always A Mortgage And Therefore Always Redeemable  – Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Right To Redemption In Mortgage Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a pivotal ruling has reaffirmed the immutable principle of property law that “once a mortgage, always a mortgage,” thereby underscoring the perpetual right of redemption in cases of usufructuary mortgages, where no specific redemption period has been defined.

The court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal No. 431 of 1999, where the appellants contested the First Appellate Court’s decision which reversed a Trial Court decree in their favor concerning ownership claims based on adverse possession and mortgage rights over disputed land.

The appellants, represented by the legal heirs of Pritpal Singh, claimed ownership by adverse possession and as mortgagees in possession for over 50 years without redemption by the original owners, the respondents led by Sukhdev Kaur. The First Appellate Court had overturned the initial decree, leading to the present appeal.

Adverse Possession and Mortgage Rights: The court examined the application of adverse possession and the doctrine of mortgage as argued by the appellants, particularly focusing on whether an indefinite period as a mortgagee could extinguish the right to redemption, which the court found unsubstantiated.

Applicability of Full Bench Decisions: Citing precedents, Justice Alka Sarin rejected the appellants’ claim that the absence of an original mortgage deed and specified terms therein could lead to ownership by efflux of time. The judgment reinforced that the right to redemption is inherent and cannot be nullified by the passage of time or by failure to produce the original mortgage document.

Rejection of Additional Evidence: The appellants’ attempt to introduce new evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was denied, with the court emphasizing that such evidence was irrelevant to determining the critical facts of the mortgage’s origination and terms.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the First Appellate Court. The court’s decision underscored the non-extinguishable right of a mortgagor to redeem the property unless explicitly relinquished through contractual terms or judicial decree.

Date of Decision: May 09, 2024

Pritpal Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lr & Ors. Vs. Sukhdev Kaur & Ors.

Similar News