Hemant Gupta, J.@mdashThe appellant, a mortgagee, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the agricultural land
measuring 13 Kanals 6 Marias by prescription. The case set up was that one Ami Chand son of Devi Singh mortgaged with possession agricultural
land measuring 14 Bighas for a sum of Rs. 80/- with Hardhan Singh son of Jit Ram on 11.8.1903. During consolidation operations, the land
measuring 13 Kanals 6 Marias was allotted in lieu of the original mortgaged land. The plaintiff claims to be in continuous possession of the suit land
as mortgagees, whereas Munshi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants, was recorded as mortgagor. The mortgagees sought the declaration
on the ground that the suit land has not been got redeemed during the period of more than 60 years and, therefore, the defendants have lost all
right, title and interest in it. Though the defendant denied the factum of mortgage, but the trial Court returned a finding that it was a case of
usufructuary mortgage and no period for payment of mortgage amount was fixed. It was observed that it is not the case of the plaintiff that they had
made a demand for mortgage amount, which was refused by the defendant. Thus, no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff which could only
accrue on demand of the mortgage amount from the defendants and refusal of the same by the defendants. The trial Court, thus, dismissed the suit
holding that the plaintiffs have not become owners of the suit land.
2. The appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was also dismissed and hence, the mortgagees are in second
appeal claiming declaration in respect of their ownership over the suit property.
3. Initially this appeal was admitted to D.B. in view of the important questions of law likely to arise in many cases. Later, in Regular Second
Appeal No. 893 of 2006, the mortgagee, who was in appeal, raised an argument that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed
to seek redemption, the time to seek redemption will arise on the date of mortgage itself. The said appeal was admitted to Division Bench in view
of the important question of law. Many other appeals were ordered to be heard with these appeals.
4. The Division Bench while hearing the present appeal along with other appeals framed the following questions for opinion of the larger Bench:
1. Whether the right to seek redemption would arise on the date of mortgage itself in case of usufructuary mortgage when no time limit is fixed to
seek redemption?
2. Whether there is any time limit in the case of a usufructuary mortgagor to get his property redeemed?
5. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ''the Act'') is as such not applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana. Sections 54, 107 and
123 of the Act were extended to the then State of Punjab with effect from 1.4.1955 and to the Pepsu area of the State of Punjab with effect from
15.5.1957. Section 59 was extended to whole of Punjab with effect from 10.6.1968. Section 58(g) of the Act, has been extended to district
headquarters in the State of Punjab vide notifications dated 28.8.1975; to all the block headquarters vide notification dated 23.6.1979; Mandi
Gobindgarh in District Fatehgarh Sahib and Mohali in Ropar vide notification dated 28.5.2001.; The provisions of Sections 59 and 58(f) have
been extended to the State of Haryana with effect from 5.8.1967 and 10.5.1972, respectively. Section 58 of the Act was extended to the area of
Chandigarh with immediate effect vide notification dated 18.12.1982. The provisions of Section 118 of the Act were extended to urban area of the
State of Punjab vide notification dated 10.8.1989.
6. The facts remains that the provisions of Section 58(d) of the Act and other provisions in respect of usufructuary mortgage have not been made
applicable to the areas falling within the jurisdiction of this Court, though such mortgages are required to be made by way of registered document in
the State of Punjab w.e.f. 10.6.1968 and from 5.8.1967 in the State of Haryana. It is also equally well settled that if the provisions of the Act are
not applicable to the area, the principles of justice, equity and good conscience are to be applied while determining the rights of the parties.
The Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Murarilal Vs. Dev Karan, , considered the question ""Does the equitable doctrine ensuing
the mortgagors equity of redemption in spite of a clog created on such equity by stipulation in the mortgage deed apply to the present case? That
was a case arising from Alwar (Rajasthan) where the provisions of the Act did not apply. The Court concluded as under:
These decisions show that the High Courts in India conformed to the view that whether or not there is a statutory provision directing the Judges to
give effect to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, it is their duty to enforce that principle where they are dealing with stipulations
introduced in mortgage transactions which appear to them to be unreasonable, oppressive or unjust.
xxx xxx xxx
...In fact, in Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai this Court has emphatically observed that it is axiomatic that the courts must apply the
principles of justice, equity and good conscience to transactions which come before them for determination even though the statutory provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act are not made applicable to these transactions. These observations, in substance, represent the same traditional judicial
approach in dealing with oppressive, unjust and unreasonable restrictions imposed by the mortgagees on needy mortgagors when mortgage
documents are executed.
7. In the judgment reported as Harbans Singh and Another Vs. Guran Ditta Singh and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with
the mortgage in a case arising out of Punjab, held to the following effect:
We hold that applying the principle of justice, equity and good conscience though Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act per se did not apply,
the principles of Section 60 would apply. Though the application for redemption was dismissed u/s 11 of the Act and became conclusive u/s 12 the
mortgagor''s right to redemption is not barred. A suit for redemption u/s 60 of Transfer of Property Act will be maintainable and civil court has
jurisdiction to grant the decree of redemption.
Thus, the provisions of the Act in respect of usufructuary mortgage are required to be interpreted keeping in view the principles of justice, equity
and good conscience and keeping in view the fact that the stipulations introduced in the mortgage transactions are not unreasonable, oppressive
and unjust.
8. The relevant provisions contained in Sections 58(a), 58(d), 60, 62, 67 of the Act and Articles 61, 62 and 63 of the Limitation Act, 1963
(hereinafter to be referred as ""the Limitation Act""), are being reproduced as under:
58. ""Mortgage"", ""mortgagor"", ""mortgagee"", ""mortgage-money"" and ""mortgaged"" defined, (a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific
immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or
the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Usufructuary mortgage-Where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the
mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the rents
and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest or in payment of the
mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called a usufructuary mortgage and the
mortgagee a usufructuary mortgagee.
xxx xxx xxx
60. Right of mortgagor to redeem
At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the
mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged
property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee, (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver
possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third
person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an
acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished:
Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by the act of the parties or by decree of a court. (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
62. Right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession
In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property together with the mortgage-deed and all
documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee,-
(a) where the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself the mortgage-money from the rents and profits of the property,-when such money is paid;
(b) where the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself from such rents and profits or any part thereof a part only of the mortgage-money, when the
term (if any) prescribed for the payment of the mortgage-money has expired and the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee the mortgage
money or the balance thereof or deposits it in court hereinafter provided.
xxx xxx xxx
67. Right to foreclosure or sale
In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the mortgagee has, at any time after; the mortgagemoney has become due to him, and before a decree
has been made for the redemption of the mortgaged property, or the mortgage-money ha& been paid or deposited as hereinafter provided, a right
to obtain from the Court a decree that the mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the property, or a decree that the property
be sold.
A suit to obtain a decree that a mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the mortgaged property is called a suit for
foreclosure.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to authorise any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he
is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or a usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute
a suit for sale; or Articles 61, 62 and 63 of the Limitation Act, 1963
61. By a mortgagor-
(a) to redeem or recover possession of immovable property mortgaged; Thirty years When the right to redeem or to recover possession accrues.
(b) to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the mortgagee for a valuable consideration; Twelve
years When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff.
(c) to recover surplus collections received by the mortgagee after the mortgage has been satisfied.
Three years When the mortgagor re-enters on the mortgaged property.
62. To enforce payment of money secured by a mortgagee or otherwise charge upon immovable property.
Twelve years When the money used for become due. 63. By a mortgagee-
(a) for foreclosure, Thirty years When the money secured by the mortgagee become due.
(b) for possession of immovable property mortgaged.
Twelve years When the mortgagee becomes entitled to possession.
9. The primary reliance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Prabhakaran and Others Vs.
M. Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs. and Others, and Sampuran Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Niranjan Kaur and Others, , to contend that in case of
usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed for redemption, the right to redeem will accrue to the mortgagor on the date of mortgage itself
and therefore, failure to redeem the mortgage within the period prescribed under Article 61 of the Act will lead to closure of the option of the
mortgagor to seek redemption. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the declaration in respect of their title over the suit property. Reference is also
made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shri Chand and Ors. v. Nathi (1983) 85 P.L.R. 288; Satnam Singh alias Shamsher
Singh and Ors. v. Roshan Lal and Ors. 986 P.L.J. 504 and B. Ramman Lal Vs. Raghunath Shanker and Another, , to contend that the right of
redemption in the cases of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed arises on the date of mortgage itself. It is contended that in terms of
Section 60 of the Act, the failure to redeem the property within the time prescribed, entitles a mortgagee to seek declaration to debar a mortgagor
to seek redemption as contemplated in the proviso of the aforesaid Section. It is also argued that the principle that once a mortgage is always a
rhortgage means that once a transaction is in the form of mortgage, it cannot be converted into any other transaction even of by the acts of the
parties and that dehors the provisions of the statute and principles of law, the nature of the transaction as a mortgage would remain intact till the
period of limitation alone.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the mortgagor-respondents relied upon Seth Ganga Dhar Vs. Shankar Lal and Others, , Jayasingh
Dnyanu Mhoprekar and Another Vs. Krishna Babaji Patil and Another, ; Panchanan Sharma Vs. Basudeo Prasad Jaganani and others, and
Harbans Vs. Om Prakash and Others, , to contend that the usufructuary mortgagor has a right to redeem the property at any point of time in a
case where no time limit is fixed for redemption. It is contended that in case where time limit is fixed, the right of redemption will arise on the date
fixed for redemption but where no time limit is fixed, the mortgagor has the right to seek redemption at any time on payment of the mortgage debt.
11. Before we refer to the judgments cited by the counsel for the parties and other precedents in respect of the issues arising in the present appeal,
we would like to refer certain general principles in respect of usufructuary mortgage.
12. In Santley v. Wilde 1895-89 All India England Reports 1338, a judgment of Court of appeal, it has been held as under:
The principle is this : a mortgage is a conveyance of land or an assignment of chatties as a security for the payment of debt or the discharge of
some other obligation for which it is given. This is the idea of a mortgage and the security is redeemable on the payment or discharge of such debt
or obligation, any provision to the contrary notwithstanding. That, in my opinion, is the law. Any provision inserted to prevent redemption on
payment or performance of the debt or obligation for which the security was given is what is meant by a clog or fetter on the equity of redemption
and is therefore void. It follows from this, that ""once a mortgage always a mortgage"". xx xx xx xx
The courts of equity have fought for years to maintain the doctrine that a security is redeemable on the performance of the obligation for which it
was given. If the obligation is the payment of debt, the security is redeemable on the payment of that debt. That in my opinion is the true principle
applicable to the cases, and that is what is meant when it is said that there must not be any clog or fetter on the equity of redemption.
In authoritative commentary on the Act, by Mulla (9th Edition), certain statements are relevant. They read as follows:
In an usufructuary mortgage, a transfer is made of the right of possession and enjoyment of the usufruct. The rights of a usufructuary mortgagee
forms part of the bundle which constitute ownership. The remainder still remains with the mortgagor and can be transferred by him. The
mortgagor'' right is as indicated in section 60 of the Act i.e. after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right to pay the
mortgage money and on such payment, he has the right to require the mortgagee to deliver possession. This right cannot be extinguished except by
the act of parties or by a decree of a Court. This right is called the right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption. Thus the
scope of a suit for redemption is preliminary to enforce the right to make a payment of the mortgage money. A claim to redeem a mortgage actually
does not attach to the land, although the decree passed in the suit may ultimately affect possession which is also an interest in land. The section is
not prefaced by any such words as ''in the absence of a contract to the contrary''. The right of redemption is therefore a statutory right which
cannot be fettered by any condition which impedes or prevents redemption. Any such condition is void as a clog on redemption
xxx xxx xxx
...The mortgagor'' right of redemption is exercised by the payment or tender to the mortgagee at the proper time and the proper place, of the
mortgage money. When it is extinguished by the act of parties, the act must take the shape and observe the formalities which the law prescribes.
The expression act of the parties'' refers to some transaction subsequent to the mortgage and standing apart from the mortgage transaction. A
usufructuary mortgagee cannot by mere assertion of his own or by a s unilateral action on his part, convert his position on moiety of the property as
mortgagee into that of an absolute owner....
13. The authoritative work of Dr. Rashbehary Ghose''s ""Law of Mortgage"", which has received the approval of the Full Bench of Lahore High
Court in Lachhman Singh v. Natha Singh through Harnam Singh and Ors. AIR 1940 Lah 401 and recently in Achaldas Durgaji Oswal (Dead)
through Lrs. Vs. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda (Dead) through Lrs. and Others, , the maxim ''once mortgage, always a mortgage has been explained
as under (Eighth Edition - Page Nos. 280-281) under the heading ""Once a Mortgage, always a mortgage"":
In 1681 Lord Nottingham in the leading case of Harris v. Harris (1681) 1 Vern 33 firmly Lald down the principle: ''Once a mortgage,'' always a
mortgage.'' This is a doctrine to protect the mortgagor''s right of redemption:
It renders all agreements in a mortgage for forfeiture of the right to redeem and also encumbrances of or dealings with the property by the
mortgagee as against a mortgagor coming to redeem. In 1902 the well-known maxim, ''once a mortgage, always a mortgage'' was supplemented
by the words and nothing but a mortgage'' added by Lord Davey in the leading case of Noakes v. Rice 1902 A.C. 24 (H.L.) : (1900) A11. E.R R
34, in which the maxim was explained to mean ''that a mortgage cannot be made irredeemable and a provision to that effect is void''. The maxim
has been supplemented in the Indian context by the words ''and therefore always redeemable'', added by Justice Sarkar of the Supreme Court in
the case of Seth Ganga Dhar Vs. Shankar Lal and Others, .
It is thus evident that very conception of mortgage, involves three principles. First, there is the maxim: ''Once a mortgage, always a mortgage.'' that
is to say, a mortgage is always redeemable and if a contrary provision is made, it is invalid. And this is an exception to the aphorism, modus et
conventio vincunt legem (custom and agreement overrule law). Secondly, the mortgagee cannot reserve to himself any collateral advantage outside
the mortgage agreement. Thirdly, as a corollary from the first another principle may be deduced, namely, ''once a mortgage, always a mortgage,
and nothing but a mortgage''. In other words, any stipulation which prevents a mortgagor from getting back the property mortgaged is void. That is,
a mortgage is always redeemable.
The maxim ''once a mortgage, always a mortgage'' may be said to be a logical corollary from the doctrine, which is the very foundation of the law
of mortgages, that time is not of the essence of the contract in such transactions; for the protection which the law throws round the mortgagor might
be rendered wholly illusory, if the right to redeem could be limited by contract between the parties For a very curious case mentioned in the books
in which the mortgagor was permitted to redeem, although he had solemnly sworn on the Bible never to exercise the right, see Stistefl''s case cited
in East India Co. v. Atkyns Comyn 348. Right to redeem is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and is inseparable from it so that the right is co-
extensive with the mortgage itself. The right subsists until it is appropriately and effectively extinguished either by the acts of the parties concerned
or by a proper decree of the competent court.
14. With the said comments of the leading commentators on the subject, we revert to precedents on the subject. A Full Bench of the Lahore High
Court in Lachhman Singh''s case (supra) has delineated the characteristics of an usufructuary mortgage as under:
It will be seen that the characteristics of a usufructuary mortgage, as defined above, are: (1) that the possession of the mortgaged property is
delivered, or agreed to be delivered, to the mortgagee; (2) that he is to appropriate the rents and profits either (a) in lieu of interest, or (b) towards
the principal, or (c) partly in lieu of interest and partly in payment of the principal; (3) that in none of these cases the mortgagor incurs any personal
liability to repay; and (4) as the mortgagor has not bound himself to repay (but may repay if and when he chooses) there can be no ""forfeiture"" and
therefore the remedies by way of foreclosure or sale are not open to the mortgagee.
Thus, any personal liability on the part of mortgagor is excluded in case of usufructuary mortgage and a usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to
sue for sale of the property. If there is any stipulation to the contrary, the transaction ceases to be one of usufructuary mortgage and is described as
anomalous mortgage. The Court proceeded to hold as under:
As stated in (2) above, usufructuary mortgages are of three kinds. Of these, the two described in (b) and (c) are self redeeming; the mortgagee has
to look to the rents and profits only to re-pay himself and when his entire charge is so liquidated he must re-deliver possession of the mortgaged
property to the mortgagor free from all encumbrances.
xxx xxx xxx
The most common form of usufructuary mortgage however is that described in 2(a) above, and it is to this class that the mortgages in the cases
before us belong. Here the rents and profits are to be set off against interest and the mortgagee is entitled to retain possession until such time as the
mortgagor chooses to redeem on payment of the principal sum secured. This form'' of mortgage has been in vogue in India since ancient times. It
was known to the Hindu lawyers under the expressive name of bhog bandakam which literally means ""mortgage (bandaka) by enjoyment (bhog).
It was a mortgage for an indefinite period, during which the mortgagee enjoyed the usufruct and the mortgagor was entitled to redeem at any time
on payment of the principal. It retained its popularity during the Mughal period, especially among the Mohammedan creditors who by obtaining
possession of property (as zer-i-peshgi lessee and under other similar names) and appropriating the rents and profits till redemption, could find a
safe investment for their money without charging interest.
The Court concluded to the following effect:
It will be clear from the foregoing discussion that the principal characteristics of a usufructuary mortgage are that there is no personal liability of the
mortgagor to pay, nor has the mortgagee a right to have the mortgaged property brought to sale.
xxx xxx xxx
Judged in this light, it must be conceded that a usufructuary mortgagor is under no liability to mortgagee. He is under no legal obligation to pay; it is
his option to redeem, if and when he chooses....
15. In Ram Prasad and Others Vs. Bishambhar Singh and Others, , the Court while examining the provisions of Section 60 of the Act held that it
applies to a case in which the mortgagor goes to the Court to obtain the return of his property on repayment of debt amount still due. On the other
hand, Section 62 of the Act applies in the case of usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property when
the principal money is paid off, where the mortgagee is authorized to pay himself the mortgage money out of the rents and profits of the property. It
was held that is not a case of redemption at all. When the rents and profits of the mortgaged property discharge the principal amount secured by
the mortgage, the mortgage came to an end and the correlative right arise in the mortgagor to recover possession of the property. The said
judgment was affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Prithi Nath Singh and Others Vs. Suraj Ahir and Others, . A Division Bench of Batna
High Court in Jadubans Sahai and Others Vs. Bahuria Phulpati Kuer and Others, , considered the scope of Sections 60 and 62 of the Act. While
considering Section 60 of the Act, it was observed that suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage necessarily involves a prayer for possession
of the mortgaged property. It is essentially a suit for both redemption and possession of the mortgaged property. But, there may be cases where
the mortgagor may claim only possession of the mortgaged property and for this provision has been made in Section 62 of the Act. The Court
found that in terms of Clause (a) of Section 62 of the Act, the only relief which the mortgagor can claim is return of possession when by the
contract between the parties, the mortgagee is authorised to recover the mortgage debt from usufruct of the property in mortgage. Clause (b) of
Section 62 of the Act contemplates cases where the rents and profits of the mortgaged property are to be applied towards interest accruing due on
the mortgage debt or towards principal or partly towards principal and partly towards interest. It was held that Section 62 of the Act comes into
operation, where in terms of the contract between the parties, the mortgagee is authorised to appropriate the rent and profits of the mortgaged
property towards partial deduction of either the principal amount or interest or both. The Court held to the following effect:
There may be cases where accounts may have to be taken before a redemption of the mortgage is granted. Wherever, the mortgagor claims
satisfaction of the mortgage debt with the usufruct, the suit is not necessarily a suit for possession. In a pure redemption suit also there may be a
prayer for account for redemption and for possession. If the mortgagor claims that the entire mortgage money had been satisfied and nothing is due
on the basis of the mortgage, it is for the Court to determine whether or not there is satisfaction of the mortgage. Therefore, such an allegation is
immaterial so far as the determination of the question whether the suit is one for possession or one for redemption is concerned. In my opinion, a
suit purely for possession arises only when the case falls under Clause (a) of Section 62.
16. While considering the question that when limitation begins to run under Article 148 (now Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963), the Court
found that if suit is for possession u/s 62 of the Act, the period of limitation starts from the date on which the right to recover possession accrues,
and that will be after the mortgage money has been paid off in the circumstances mentioned in Section 62.
17. In Pomal Kanji Govindji and Others Vs. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit and Others, , the Court examined the principles of redemption of a
mortgage and clog on equity of redemption. The Court observed that freedom of contract is permissible provided it does not lead to taking
advantage of the oppressed or depressed people. The law must transform itself to the social awareness. Poverty should not be unduly permitted to
curtail one''s right to borrow money on the ground of justice, equity and good conscience on just terms. If it does, it is bad; whether it does or does
not, must, however, depend upon the facts and the circumstances of each case. The Court proceeded to hold to the following effect:
26. It is a right of the mortgagor on redemption, by reason of the very nature of the mortgage, to get back the subject of the mortgage and to hold
and enjoy as he was entitled to hold and enjoy it before the mortgage. If he is prevented from doing so or is prevented from redeeming the
mortgage, such prevention is bad in law. If he is so prevented, the equity of redemption is affected by that whether aptly or not, and it has always
been termed as clog. Such a clog is inequitable. The law does not countenance it....
27. These principles have been recognised by this Court in Seth Ganga Dhar Vs. Shankar Lal and Others, . It has also to be borne in mind that
long term for redemption in respect of immovable properties was prevalent at a time when things and the Society were, more or less, in a static
condition. We live in changing circumstances. Mortgage is a security of loan. It is an axiomatic principle of life and law that necessitous men are not
free men. A mortgage is essentially and basically a conveyance in law or an assignment of chattels as a security for the payment of debt or for
discharge of some other obligation for which it is given. The security must, therefore, be redeemable on the payment or discharge of such debt or
obligation. Any provision to the contrary, notwithstanding, is a clog or fetter on the equity of redemption and, hence, bad and void. ""Once a
mortgage must always remain a mortgage"", and must not be transformed into a conveyance or deprivation of the right over the property.
18. In terms of proviso to Section 60 of the Act, any mortgage including usufructuary mortgage can be extinguished only by act of the parties or by
decree of the Court. The said expressions have been considered in numerous judgments. We shall examine the meaning of each of the expressions
i.e., by act of the parties or by decree of the Court, in detail hereinafter.
Right of redemption when extinguished by a decree of the Court:
One of the earliest judgments examining the said expressions is AIR 1934 205 (Privy Council) . The question in the aforesaid case was whether on
account of non payment of the mortgage amount in terms of the decree extinguishes the right of the mortgagor to seek redemption. In the aforesaid
case, the plaintiff was granted time to deposit the mortgage amount and, in case of default, it was ordered that his case will stand dismissed. It was
held to the following effect:
...The right to redeem is a right conferred upon the mortgagor by enactment, of which he can only be deprived by means and in manner enacted for
that purpose, and strictly complied with. In the present case, the only basis for the claim that the right to redeem has been extinguished is Section
60; but in their Lordships'' view the old decree cannot properly be construed as doing that which it does not purport to do, viz., as extinguishing
the right to redeem.
No authority was cited to their Lordships in any way conflicting with the view which they have formed. 24 All. 44(2) was a case of a usufructuary
mortgage. The proper decree in a suit to redeem such a mortgage ought to have provided that in default of redemption the property should be
sold. In fact it provided that in a case of default the judgment should be deemed non-existent.
It was held by the Full Bench that a second redemption suit was maintainable....
19. The Federal Court in Thoda China Subnet Rao and Ors. v. Mattapalli Raju and Ors. 23 AIR 1950 FC 1, considered the judgment of Privy
Council and found that the CPC dealt with the procedure relating to all suits. There was a special law which dealt with the rights of the mortgagors
and mortgages and that substantive law was found to be in the Transfer of Property Act.
That substantive law provided only two ways in which the right of redemption can be extinguished and they were: (i) by act of the parties, (ii) by
decree of the Court. It was held to the following effect:
In our opinion, the view of the Madras High Court is incorrect. We prefer the view taken by the Bombay High Court on this point. The right of
redemption is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and it subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists. As held by the Privy Council in AIR 1934
205 (Privy Council) the right of redemption can be extinguished by a decree, the decree should run strictly in accordance with the form prescribed
for the purpose.
Unless the equity of redemption is so extinguished, a second suit for redemption by the mortgagor, if filed within the period of limitation, is not,
therefore, barred. The Board expressly held that if the appellants failed to establish that the old decree extinguished the right to redeem, there was
no ground for saying that the old decree operated as res judicata and the Courts are prevented from trying the second suit u/s 11, Civil P.C. They,
therefore, held that the right to redeem was not extinguished by the procedural provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code.
20. In K. Parameswaran Pillai (dead) v. K. Sumathi alias Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Anr. , while considering the provisions of Order 34 Rules 7
and 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as ""the Code""), it was held that by operation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8
where, before a final decree debarring the plaintiff from all rights to redeem the mortgaged property has been passed or before the confirmation of
a sale held in pursuance of a final decree passed under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, the plaintiff makes payment into court of all amounts due from him,
the final decree is discharged. It was further held to the following effect:
...The resultant operation of the law would be that in the case of usufructuary mortgage, the plaintiff need not make any application for extension of
time fixed in the preliminary decree. The mortgage/defendant has no right to make an application to foreclose the right of the plaintiff or sale of
hypotheca declaring that the plaintiff has been debarred from making payment in court or to proceed further. At any time before passing of final
decree or confirmation of the sale held in pursuance of the final decree the plaintiff usufructuary mortgagor has been given right to make payment of
the redemption money due under preliminary decree and the subsequent liability incurred thereon. The outer limit for making such payment is
passing of the final decree or confirmation of the sale made in furtherance thereof. The final decree for foreclosure or sale or redemption in relation
to other mortgages, the right of payment has been hedged with the duty to deposit the money declared or quantified in the preliminary decree
within the time specified under the preliminary decree or extended period from time to time till final decree debarring the plaintiff from redemption
etc is passed. The outer limit for a usufructuary mortgagor for making payment of the amount due under the preliminary decree, is passing of the
final decree or the date of confirmation of the sale.
It was also held that in case of usufructuary mortgage Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 expressly excludes the right to the mortgagee to apply
for foreclosure or sale or redemption. Necessary consequence is that so long as the right subsists, though there is delay in compliance of the
condition imposed in the preliminary decree, the right of redemption to the mortgagor is not lost.
21. In Achaldas Durgaji Oswal (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda (Dead) through Lrs. and Others, , the Court quoted with
approval the principle of law authored by Dr. Rashbehary Ghose, as reproduced above, and other eminent writers and held to the following effect
while considering the statutory right of mortgagee in terms of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Article 61 of the Limitation
Act, 1963:
20. The statutory provisions, as noticed herein before, are required to be construed having regard to the redeeming features of usufructuary
mortgage, namely, (a) there is a delivery of possession to the mortgage, (b) he is to retain possession until repayment of money and to receive rents
and profits or part thereof in lieu of interest, or in payment of mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest and partly in payment of mortgage-
money, (c) there is redemption when the amount due is personally paid or is discharged by rents or profits received and (d) there is no remedy by
sale or foreclosure.
*** *** ***
22. The right of redemption of a mortgagor being a statutory right, the same can be taken away only in terms of the proviso appended to Section
60 of the Act which is extinguished either by a decree or by act of parties. Admittedly, in the instant case, no decree has been passed extinguishing
the right of the mortgagor nor has such right come to an end by act of the parties.
23. A right for obtaining a final decree for sale or foreclosure can be exercised only on payment of such money. Such a right can be exercised at
any time even before the sale is confirmed although the final decree might have been passed in the meanwhile. The mortgagee is also not entitled to
receive any payment under the preliminary decree nor is the mortgagor required to make an application to recover before paying the same.
24. Even, indisputably, despite expiry of the time for deposit of the mortgaged money in terms of the preliminary decree, a second suit for
redemption would be maintainable.
22. Thus the right to seek redemption continues to exist at all times but before the confirmation of sale of the mortgaged property irrespective of
the decree of sale being granted. In fact even another suit to seek redemption would be maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid judgments, it can be safely concluded that right to redemption exist at all times but before confirmation of sale. Even
second suit for redemption has been found to be maintainable.
23. Extinguishment of right of redemption by act of parties:
Now we will examine the extinguishment of right of redemption by act of the parties. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A.
Kamtam and Another, , was seized of a question where the mortgagee under English mortgage had a power to sell the mortgaged property without
the intervention of the Court. The mortgagee has sold the properties after giving notice to the mortgagor. The question arose whether the
mortgagor can exercise his right of redemption after such sale. The Court held that right of redemption will be only on execution of conveyance and
registration of transfer of mortgagor''s interest by registered document. The conferment of power without the intervention of the Court in a
mortgage deed by itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right to redemption. It was held as under: ...The extinction of the right of redemption
has to be subsequent to the deed conferring such power. The right of redemption is not extinguished at the expiry of the period. The equity of
redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale.
24. In Parichhan Mistry (Dead) by Lrs. and another Vs. Acchiabar Mistry and others, , it was held that usufructuary mortgage cannot by mere
assertion of his own or by a unilateral act on his part, assert himself to be the absolute owner. It was held to the following effect:
...When it is extinguished by the act of parties the act must take the shape and observe the formalities which the law prescribe. The expression ""Act
of parties"" refers to some transaction subsequent to the mortgage and standing apart from the mortgage transaction. A usufructuary mortgagee
cannot by mere assertion of his own or by a unilateral act on his part, convert his position on moiety of the property as mortgagee into that of an
absolute owner....
25. Later, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hamzabi and Ors. v. Syed Karimuddin and Ors. (2001)1 S.C.C. 414, held to the following effect:
2. The right of the mortgagor to redeem had its origin as an equitable principle for giving relief against forfeiture even after the mortgagor defaulted
in making payment under the mortgage deed. It is a right which has defaulted in making payment under the mortgage deed. It is a right which has
been jealously guarded over the years by courts. The maxim of ""once a mortgage always a mortgage"" and the avoidance of provisions obstructing
redemption as ""clogs on redemption"" are expressions of this judicial protection. (See: Pomal Kanji Govindji and Others Vs. Vrajlal Karsandas
Purohit and Others, in this context). As far as this country is concerned, the right is statutorily recognised in Section 60 of the Transfer of Property
Act. The section gives the mortgagor right to redeem the property at any time after the principal money has become due by tendering the mortgage
money and claiming possession of the mortgaged property from the mortgagee. The only limit to this right is contained in the proviso to the section
which reads:
Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a court.
3. While the expression ""decree of court"" is explicit enough, the phrase ""act of parties"" has given rise to controversy. One such act may be when
the mortgagor sells the equity of redemption to the mortgagee. This Court in Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A. Kamtam and Another, has said:
S.C.C. p.254, para 34 ""In India it is only on execution of the conveyance and registration of transfer of the mortgagor''s interest by registered
instrument that the mortgagor''s right of redemption will be extinguished.
Thus, the right of redemption by act of parties can be extinguished by independent contract subsequent to the mortgage and not by an unilateral act
on the part of the mortgagee under the mortgage.
In Ganga Dhar''s case (supra), Hon''ble Supreme Court was examining a mortgage which was for a period of 85 years but the same was sought to
be redeemed before the expiry of the said period on the ground that such long period amounts to clog on redemption. The Court held to the
following effect:
The right of redemption, therefore, cannot be taken away. The Courts will ignore any contract the effect of which is to deprive the mortgagor of his
right to redeem the mortgage. One thing, therefore is clear, namely, that the term in the mortgage contract, that on the failure of the mortgagor to
redeem the mortgage with the specified period of six months the mortgagor will have no claim over the mortgaged property, and the mortgage
deed will be deemed to be deed of sale in favour of the mortgagee, cannot be sustained. It plainly takes away altogether, the mortgagor''s right to
redeem the mortgage after the specified period. This is not permissible, for ""once a mortgage always a mortgage"" and therefore always
redeemable. The same result also follow from S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act....
26. The said judgment was quoted extensively by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Harbans ''s case (supra), which arose out of a judgment of this
Court reported as Harbans Vs. Om Parkash, .
The order passed by this Court is reproduced for ready reference:
1. This is plaintiffs second appeal.
2. Plaintiff filed civil suit contending therein that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the ancestors of one Bhira with the fore-fathers of plaintiff
and mortgage has not been got redeemed by the mortgagor within 30 years and so, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, have become owners by
efflux of time. Upon notice of suit, defendant No. 1 contested the suit and alleged that mortgage has already been redeemed. He denied that
plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have become owners by efflux of time. Trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal by defendant No. 1 judgment of
the trial Court has been modified and it has been held that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have not become owners as there is no period of
limitation to redeem usufructuary mortgage. It has, however, been held that defendant No. 1 has failed to prove the mortgage has been redeemed.
Against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, plaintiff has come in second appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Rakha and
others, , has contended that by not redeeming the mortgage within the stipulated period, mortgagor has lost right to redeem the same.
4. After hearing the counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that the judgment cited by the counsel for plaintiff in Ram Rakha''s case
(supra), the point in issue was not considered. In this case, it is the admitted case of the parties that mortgagee is in possession of the property in
dispute and no evidence has been brought on record by the mortgagee to show that mortgage was for a fixed period. Since no time was
prescribed for redeeming the land, the mortgagor has the right to get the property redeemed, there being no limitation for redeeming the said
mortgage (emphasis supplied). In this regard, reference be made to judgment in Panchanan Sharma v. Basudeo Prasad Jaganani and Ors. 1995
H.R.R. 575. Consequently, this appeal being without any merit shall stand dismissed.
This Court has relied upon Panchanan Sharma''s case (supra) and distinguished State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Rakha and others, and held
that usufructuary mortgage is always redeemable. The appeal of the mortgagee was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Harbans''s case (supra)
with a quote from Dr. Rashbehary Ghose''s work, to the effect ""that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable"".
27. In Panchanan Sharma''s case (supra), Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if the deed gives time for redemption or adjustment of the rent or
profits and liabilities in terms of the contract, the limitation for redemption would run from the date fixed in the mortgage deed. Otherwise, there is
no limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. It was held to the following effect:
Though it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the question whether Ramtahal Singh is a benamidar for the first defendant, suffice
to state that by operation of Section 76(c), he is enjoined to pay land revenue to the Government and for the default committed by the mortgagee,
when the property was sold, the mortgagor had not lost his right of redemption by the conduct and actions of the mortgagee. If the deed gives time
for redemption or adjustment of the rent or profits and liabilities in terms of the contract read with the relevant provisions of the Act stood
discharged, the limitation for would run from the date fixed in the mortgage deed. Otherwise, there is no limitation for redemption of usufructuary
mortgage. The usufructuary mortgagor does not lose his tile to the property or right to redemption by lapse of time....
28. Learned Counsel for the mortgagees referred to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Chand and other''s case (supra).
However, the primary question examined in the said case was validity of the oral mortgages effected prior to the enforcement of Section 59 of the
Act in Haryana State. The Court found that oral or unregistered mortgages executed prior to applicability of Section 59 of the Act to the State of
Haryana were valid. Since the suit was filed against the dead persons and the application for impleading the legal representatives was filed after
period of 30 years from the date of mortgage, the Court dismissed the suit while allowing the revision petition. The question that as to when the
period of limitation would run in case of usufructuary mortgage was not examined nor raised in the aforesaid judgment.
29. In Sampuran Singh''s case (supra) the primary question revolved around acknowledgment of the mortgage. Although the said judgment
supports the argument raised by learned Counsel for the mortgagee but the judgment of the larger Bench including that of Seth Ganga Dhar''s case
(supra) were not noticed. The''said judgment is on the lines of another judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ram Rakha''s case (supra) which
was noticed in Harbans''s case (supra) and it was held that the said decision does not lay down correct position in law.
30. In Prabhakaran ''s case (supra), the primary question again was in respect of acknowledgment. Though in para No. 13 of the judgment it has
been observed that in case of a usufructuary mortgage which does not fix any date for repayment of the mortgage money, the right to redeem
would accrue immediately on execution of the mortgage deed. But said observation is orbiter inasmuch as Hon''ble Supreme Court has allowed the
appeal of the mortgagor for redemption while holding that there is acknowledgment. Therefore, the said judgment provides little assistance to the
mortgagees.
31. After considering the aforesaid judgments, we respectfully agree that the view of the Full Bench of this Court in Lachhman Singh''s case (supra)
and that of Patna High Court in Jadubans Sahai''s case (supra). The provisions of Sections 60, 62 and 67 of the Transfer of Property Act are not
applicable within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, these provisions are required to be interpreted keeping iii view the principles of equity
and good conscience. Since the mortgage is essentially and basically a conveyance in law or an assignment of chattels as a security for the payment
of debt or for discharge of some other obligation for which it is given, the security must, therefore, be redeemable on the payment or discharge of
such debt or obligation. That is the view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pomal Kanji Govindji''s case (supra) wherein it has also been held that
poverty should not be unduly permitted to curtail one''s right to borrow money. Since at one point of time the mortgagor for one or the other
reason mortgaged his property to avail financial assistance on account of necessities of life, the mortgagor''s right cannot be permitted to be
defeated only on account of passage of time. The interpretation sought to be raised by the mortgagees is to defeat the right of the mortgagor and is
wholly inequitable and unjust. The mortgagee remains in possession of the mortgaged property; enjoys the usufruct thereof and, therefore not to
lose anything by returning the security on receipt of mortgage debt.
Section 60 of the Act is general in nature applicable to all kinds of mortgages including usufructuary mortgage which is evident from Clause (b) of
Section 60 of the Act, where the mortgagee in possession of the mortgaged property is required to deliver possession to the mortgagor. But
Section 62 of the Act is a special provision dealing only with the rights of usufructuary mortgagor. In terms of Clause (a) of Section 62 of the Act,
the suit is for possession after the mortgage comes to an end by self redeeming process as the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself the mortgage
money from the rents and profits of the property. The mortgagee has to look to the rents and profits only to repay himself and when his entire
charge is so liquidated he must re-deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagor. However, in terms of Clause (b) of Section 62
of the Act, the right of the mortgagor will arise''only after rents and profits derived by the mortgagee out of the usufruct of the mortgaged property
are adjusted towards the interest or the principal and on mortgagor paying the balance in the manner prescribed. In such mortgages, rents and
profits are to be set off against interest and the mortgagee is entitled to retain possession until such time as the mortgagor chooses to redeem on
payment of.the principal sum secured. Such right for possession will accrue after the mortgage money is paid off.
32. The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) beings to run ""when the right to redeem or the possession accrues"". The right to redemption or
recover possession accrues to the mortgagor on payment of sum secured in case of usufructuary mortgage, where rents and profits are to be set
off against interest on the mortgage debt, on payment or tender to the mortgagee, the mortgage money or balance thereof or deposit in the court.
The right to seek foreclosure is co-extensive with the right to seek redemption. Since right to seek redemption accrues only on payment of the
mortgage money or the balance thereof after adjustment of rents and profits from the interest thereof, therefore, right of foreclosure will not accrue
to the mortgagee till such time the mortgagee remains in possession of the mortgaged security and is appropriating usufruct of the mortgaged land
towards the interest on the mortgaged debt. Thus, the period of redemption or possession would not start till such time usufruct of the land and the
profits are being adjusted towards interest on the mortgage amount. In view of the said interpretation, the principle that once a mortgage, always a
mortgage and, therefore always redeemable would be applicable.
33. The argument that after the expiry of period of limitation to sue for foreclosure, the mortgagees have a right to seek declaration in respect of
their title over the suit property is not correct. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the mortgage cannot be extinguished by any
unilateral act of the mortgagee. Since the mortgage cannot be unilaterally terminated, therefore, the declaration claimed is nothing but a suit for
foreclosure. It is equally well settled that it is not title of the suit, which determines the nature of the suit. The nature of the suit is required to be
determined by reading all the averments in the plaint. Such declaration cannot be claimed by an usufructuary mortgagee. Thus, we prefer to follow
the dictum of law Lald down by the larger Bench in Seth Ganga Dhar''s case (supra) as well as judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jayasingh
Dnyanu Mhoprekar''s case (supra), Pomal Kanji Govindji''s case (supra), Panchanan Sharma''s case (supra) and Harbans ''s case (supra) in
preference to the judgments relied upon by the mortgagees in Prabhakaran''s case (supra) and Sampuran Singh''s case (supra).
34. Therefore, we answer the questions framed to hold that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the
right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee
or deposits in Court, the mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always
redeemable.
Having answered the questions or law framed, we do not una any merit in the present appeal filed by the mortgagees to seek declaration in respect
of their title. The appeal is dismissed.