Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case — Appellants Held Entitled to Right of Redemption Along with Respondent No.1. Co-mortgagors' Right to Redeem Mortgage Property Upheld Under Mortgage by Conditional Sale Deed Dated 15th April 1971.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 138
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Second Appeal filed by the original Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 against the judgment of the lower appellate court. The Respondent No.1, the original Plaintiff, claimed to be the wife of Jinnappa Rama Khot, who mortgaged the suit property in favor of Respondent No.2 (original Defendant No.1) by a deed of mortgage by conditional sale dated 15th April 1971. The mortgage was to be redeemed on or before 15th April 1976. The appellants, who were the daughters of Jinnappa Rama Khot, contended that they were co-mortgagors and had the right to redeem the property. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, but the appellate court modified the decree, excluding the appellants from the right of redemption. The High Court admitted the Second Appeal on the substantial question of law whether the appellants were wrongly held to be excluded from the right to redeem. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were co-mortgagors and entitled to redeem the property along with Respondent No.1. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the trial court's decree, with the modification that the appellants could redeem the property along with Respondent No.1.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Mortgage by Conditional Sale - Right of Redemption - Co-mortgagors - The substantial question of law was whether the appellants, as co-mortgagors, were wrongly excluded from the right to redeem the mortgage property. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to redeem the property along with Respondent No.1, as they were co-mortgagors under the same mortgage deed. (Paras 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants were wrongly held to be excluded from the right to redeem the mortgage property along with Respondent No.1 or to her exclusion.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside. Trial court's decree restored with modification that appellants are entitled to redeem the property along with Respondent No.1.

Law Points

  • Right of redemption
  • Mortgage by conditional sale
  • Co-mortgagor
  • Exclusion from redemption
  • Substantial question of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 151

Second Appeal No. 488 of 1988

2005-03-18

Abhay S. Oka

Shri V.S. Gokhale for the Appellants, Shri V.B. Naik for the Respondent No.1

Sunanda d/o. Jayawant Dhanawade representing herself as Sunanda w/o. Jinnappa Khot and others

Putalabai w/o. Jinnappa Rama Khot and Dinkarrao Anandrao Ghorpade

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

Nature of Litigation

Second Appeal against judgment in a mortgage redemption suit

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to be included in the right to redeem the mortgage property

Filing Reason

Appellants were excluded from the right to redeem by the lower appellate court

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff; lower appellate court modified the decree excluding appellants from redemption

Issues

Whether the appellants were wrongly held to be excluded from the right to redeem the mortgage property along with Respondent No.1 or to her exclusion.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued they were co-mortgagors entitled to redeem Respondent No.1 argued that appellants were not entitled to redeem

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants, being co-mortgagors under the same mortgage deed, are entitled to the right of redemption along with the Respondent No.1.

Judgment Excerpts

the substantial question of law being whether appellants were wrongly held to be excluded from the right to redeem whether along with Respondent No.1 or to her exclusion.

Procedural History

The suit was filed by Respondent No.1 for redemption of mortgage. Trial court decreed the suit. Lower appellate court modified the decree excluding appellants. Appellants filed Second Appeal which was admitted on substantial question of law on 30th November 1988. Heard on 16th March 2005 and judgment delivered on 18th March 2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case — Appellants Held Entitled to Right of Redemption Along with Respondent No.1. Co-mortgagors' Right to Redeem Mortgage Property Upheld Under Mortgage by Conditional Sale Deed Dated 1...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Prevention of Corruption Act Case, Reinstating FIR Quashed by High Court. Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory Under Section 17 When Superintendent of Police Orders Investigation Based on Detailed Source Report Discl...