High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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