Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case Due to Acknowledgment of Right of Redemption. Sale Deed Recitals Acknowledged Mortgagor's Right, Validating Suit Filed Within Limitation Period Under Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963.

In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 22.5.1886, filed by the appellant, the successor in interest of the mortgagor, on 28.12.1968. The limitation for filing such a suit under the Limitation Act, 1908 was 60 years, expiring on 22.5.1946. The appellant contended that an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's right to redeem was made in a sale deed dated 1.11.1913, which should reset the limitation period. The Trial Court accepted this argument and granted a decree for redemption, but the Additional District Judge and subsequently the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the sale deed did not acknowledge the right of redemption. The Supreme Court, however, found that the recitals in the sale deed did indeed acknowledge the mortgagor's right, thus constituting a valid acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court noted that the suit was filed within the appropriate time frame, as the acknowledgment reset the limitation period. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the Trial Court's decree for redemption and clarifying that the appeal only concerned the property mortgaged under the deed dated 22.5.1886. The appellant was entitled to costs.

Headnote

A) Limitation Law - Acknowledgment of Liability - Sale Deed as Acknowledgment - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 19 - The recitals in the sale deed acknowledged the mortgagor's right of redemption, thus constituting a fresh starting point for limitation. The court held that the recitals indicated a subsisting liability and relationship between the parties, allowing the suit to be filed within the prescribed time. (Paras 613-615).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the sale deed of 1.11.1913 contained an acknowledgment of a subsisting right of redemption by the mortgagor.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Additional District Judge and the High Court, and restored the decree for redemption passed by the Trial Court, holding that the recitals in the sale deed constituted an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's right of redemption.

Law Points

  • Limitation period
  • acknowledgment of liability
  • subsisting right of redemption
  • Limitation Act
  • 1908
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1989 LawText (SC) (07) 1

Civil Appeal No. 3108 of 1989

1989-07-31

Ranganathan, S., Mukharji, Sabyasachi

1989 AIR 1775, 1989 SCR (3) 610, 1989 SCC (4) 30, JT 1989 (3) 379, 1989 SCALE (2) 268

Harbans Lal, Ashok K. Mahajan, Jitender Sharma

Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon

Mohinder Parkash & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for redemption of mortgage

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to redeem the mortgaged property

Filing Reason

Claimed acknowledgment of right to redeem in a sale deed

Previous Decisions

Trial Court granted decree for redemption; reversed by Additional District Judge and High Court

Issues

Whether the sale deed acknowledged the mortgagor's right of redemption Whether the suit was filed within the limitation period

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the sale deed acknowledged the right of redemption Respondents contended that the sale deed did not serve as an acknowledgment

Ratio Decidendi

The acknowledgment of a subsisting right of redemption in a sale deed can reset the limitation period for filing a suit for redemption under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Judgment Excerpts

The period of limitation cannot be extended by a mere passing recital regarding the factum of the mortgage but the statement on which the plea of an acknowledgment is based must relate to a subsisting liability. The words spell out a clear intention that the moneys due under the mortgage still remained unpaid and also that the mortgagor had a subsisting right of redemption.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for redemption in the Trial Court, which was granted. The Additional District Judge accepted the respondents' appeal, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and allowed it.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1908:
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 19, 30
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Acquittal in SC/ST Act Case — Prosecution Fails to Prove Caste-Based Insult and Hurt. Alleged Offence of Caste Abuse and Assault Not Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Acquittal Upheld Under Sections 3...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Challenging Unreasoned Arbitration Award — No Violation of Natural Justice Found. Citing lack of objections during arbitration and absence of legal errors.