Your Right to Redemption is not Forever

Must Read

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Follow us

Issue

There was mortgaged property which was auctioned off to a few buyers. Can the mortgagor or the buyers of the mortgaged property claim redemption on that property now? Can he ask the court to dispel the buyer of his peaceful possession to take over the mortgage?

There was mortgaged property which was auctioned off to a few buyers. Can the mortgagor or the buyers of the mortgaged property claim redemption on that property now? Can he ask the court to dispel the buyer of his peaceful possession to take over the mortgage?

The judiciary has faced this question in the case of Allokam Peddabbayya vs Allahabad Bank, CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2763-2764 of 2008. The Section under dispute is that of Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act:-

“At any time after the principal money has become 1[due], the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee to deliver the property ….”

“91. Persons who may sue for redemption

Besides the mortgagor, any of the following persons may redeem, or institute a suit for redemption of, the mortgaged property, namely,-

(a) any person (other than the mortgagee of the interest sought to be redeemed) who has any interest in, or charge upon, the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same;”

Thus, to get back the property that one has mortgaged is essentially a statutory right. No doubt about that. But, nevertheless, it necessarily presupposes the existence of a mortgage. Where there is no mortgage property in existence, it is impossible to exercise the right to redemption. It is for this reason that the court held:-

The right to redeem can stand extinguished either by the act of the parties or by operation of the law in the form of a Decree of the Court under the proviso to Section 60 of the Act.

Facts

Under the facts of this case, the Bank had preferred a closure of the loans taken by the Appellants. When they were unable to do so, the Bank had preferred for an auction of the mortgaged property. The Plaintiffs were stated to have purchased the mortgaged property by different sale deeds dated 12.08.1985, 20.08.1985 and 30.09.1985. Their contention was that the purchaser stepped into the shoes of his predecessors-in-title, and therefore, had the same rights which his predecessor had in the title before the purchase.

The judgment of the court is unambiguous in these words:-

interest in the mortgaged property through their predecessor-in-interest and in the right to redeem the same was competent to do so under Section 91 of the Act, but subject to the limitation under the proviso to Section 60. Their rights could not be any superior or separate from that of their predecessor-in-interest. If the right to redeem stood extinguished by operation of the law under the proviso to Section 60 of the Act prior to the period elimination, it cannot be contended that the right could nonetheless be enforced anytime before the expiry of limitation of 30 years.

Thus, the court held that the possession of the property by the Defendants by way of the auction of Bank cannot be disturbed.

Learning Outcome

This was an important judgment that secured the rights of the innocent buyer over the property. The buyers shall not be disposed of as and when the mortgagors choose to take their right to redemption.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -