Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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.

Latest Legal News