Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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