Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case: Mirashi Tenant's Right of Redemption Extinguished After Land Resumed to Government and Regranted to Mortgagee Under Abolition Act. The Court held that the mortgagee's regrant was independent and not for the benefit of the mortgagor, and the mortgagor's failure to seek regrant extinguished his right of redemption.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute over the right of redemption of a mortgage concerning watan land. The suit land was originally a Paragana watan property governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874. Smt. Laxmibai, the watandar, inducted Ramchandra as a permanent Mirashi tenant. On 14.05.1947, Ramchandra mortgaged the land to Shankar Sakharam Kenjale by a conditional sale deed for Rs. 900, with possession given to the mortgagee. The Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 came into force on 25.01.1951, abolishing watans and resuming watan lands to the Government, subject to Section 4 which allowed regrant. The original watandar did not seek regrant, but the mortgagee, relying on a Government Resolution, obtained a regrant in his favour in 1960. The successors of the mortgagor (respondents) filed a suit for redemption in 1978, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, holding that the mortgagor's right of redemption was extinguished due to resumption and regrant. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed these decisions, applying Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act and precedents to hold that the mortgagee held the regrant for the benefit of the mortgagor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Abolition Act, particularly the proviso to Section 3(3) and Section 8, which protected the rights of lawful tenants. However, the Court found that the Mirashi tenant's rights as a tenant survived, but his right as a mortgagor to redeem did not, because the mortgagee obtained regrant in his own right after the land was resumed to the Government. The mortgagor failed to seek regrant, and the mortgagee's regrant was not on behalf of the mortgagor. The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the High Court, holding that Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act did not apply. The appeal was allowed, and the suit for redemption was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Mortgage - Right of Redemption - Extinguishment - Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, Sections 3, 4, 8; Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, Section 5 - The suit land, a watan property, was mortgaged by a permanent Mirashi tenant to the mortgagee. After the Abolition Act came into force, the land was resumed to the Government. The mortgagee obtained a regrant of the land. The mortgagor's right of redemption was held to be extinguished because the mortgagor failed to obtain regrant, and the mortgagee's regrant was independent. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decree for redemption. (Paras 1-10)

B) Trusts - Constructive Trust - Section 90, Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - The High Court had applied Section 90 to hold that the mortgagee held the regrant for the benefit of the mortgagor. The Supreme Court held that Section 90 does not apply because the mortgagee obtained regrant in his own right, not as a trustee for the mortgagor, and the mortgagor's rights had ceased. (Paras 4-10)

C) Tenancy - Mirashi Tenant - Rights - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, Section 8 - The Mirashi tenant's tenancy rights survived resumption under Section 8 of the Abolition Act, but the tenant did not seek regrant. The mortgagee's regrant did not revive the mortgagor's right of redemption. (Paras 8-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the permanent Mirashi tenant—mortgagor’s right of redemption ceased to exist by virtue of the resumption of the suit land under the Abolition Act and its subsequent regrant in favour of the mortgagee?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the dismissal of the suit for redemption. The Court held that the mortgagor's right of redemption was extinguished upon resumption of land to the Government and the mortgagee's independent regrant.

Law Points

  • Right of redemption
  • mortgage by conditional sale
  • resumption of watan land
  • regrant
  • Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act
  • 1950
  • Bombay Hereditary Offices Act
  • 1874
  • Indian Trusts Act
  • 1882
  • Section 90
  • Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
  • 1948
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (4) 41

Civil Appeal No. 4594 of 2010

2020-04-17

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (died) through his legal heirs

Narayan Krishna Gade and Another

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court judgment decreeing suit for redemption of mortgage.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the High Court's decree for redemption and restore the dismissal of the suit.

Filing Reason

The High Court reversed concurrent findings of lower courts and decreed redemption, holding that the mortgagee held regrant for mortgagor's benefit.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed suit for redemption; First Appellate Court affirmed dismissal; High Court reversed and decreed redemption.

Issues

Whether the permanent Mirashi tenant—mortgagor’s right of redemption ceased to exist by virtue of the resumption of the suit land under the Abolition Act and its subsequent regrant in favour of the mortgagee?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that once the Abolition Act came into force, the suit land vested with the Government and after regrant to the mortgagee, he became absolute owner; mortgagor's rights ended. Respondents argued that Section 90 of Indian Trusts Act and precedents require mortgagee to hold regrant for mortgagor's benefit; rights of Mirashi tenant survived resumption.

Ratio Decidendi

The right of redemption of a mortgagor is extinguished when the mortgaged property is resumed by the Government under the Abolition Act and the mortgagee obtains a regrant in his own right, as the mortgagor's failure to seek regrant severs the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship. Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act does not apply to create a constructive trust in such circumstances.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether the permanent Mirashi tenant—mortgagor’s (Respondents) right of redemption ceased to exist by virtue of the resumption of the suit land under the Abolition Act and its subsequent regrant in favour of the mortgagee (Appellants)? From a reading of the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Abolition Act, it is clear that the resumption of watan land to the Government under the Abolition Act does not affect the rights of an alienee of the watandar or his representative of such land under the Watan Act or that of any person claiming through or under him.

Procedural History

The suit for redemption was filed in 1978 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, and dismissed on 09.12.1983. An appeal to the District Judge, Satara was dismissed on 24.03.1987. A second appeal to the Bombay High Court was allowed on 08.06.2009, decreeing the suit. The present appeal to the Supreme Court was filed against that judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950: 3, 4, 8
  • Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874: 5
  • Indian Trusts Act, 1882: 90
  • Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case: Mirashi Tenant's Right of Redemption Extinguished After Land Resumed to Government and Regranted to Mortgagee Under Abolition Act. The Court held that the mortgagee's regrant was independent an...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Property Dispute Over Inheritance and Limitation Under Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933. The Court held that the suit for recovery of possession was barred by limitation as the appellants filed beyond 12 yea...