Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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.

Latest Legal News