9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Redemption of mortgages under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act and the rights of mortgagors and purchasers in relation to scaled-down debts. Analysis: The appeals in this case concern two suits brought by mortgagors seeking redemption of mortgages under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgagors sold a portion of the mortgaged property to a purchaser who failed to fulfill the payment obligations, resulting in outstanding mortgage debts when the Act came into force. The mortgagors, claiming the Act's benefits as agriculturists, deposited the scaled-down amounts in court and sought redemption. The main issue was whether the decrees for redemption were rightfully granted by the lower court. The appellant contended that the properties in the hands of the purchaser should only be redeemed upon payment of the entire mortgage amounts, as allowing redemption based on scaled-down debts would benefit the non-agriculturist purchaser unfairly. Previous decisions were cited to support this argument, but the court found them inapplicable. The court emphasized that the mortgagors, being agriculturists, were entitled to redeem the mortgage as a whole under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, especially when the mortgage money was liable to be scaled down under the Act. The court referenced a relevant case where the redemption decree was scaled down even against non-agriculturist purchasers. It was highlighted that the amount retained by the purchaser from the sale proceeds essentially represented part of the purchase money reserved for the mortgagee. Therefore, allowing the mortgagors to redeem the mortgages as a whole did not confer an unjust benefit on the non-agriculturist purchaser, as he might have to refund the unpaid portion to the mortgagors. Regarding the appellant's argument that the purchaser should be personally liable for the retained amounts, the court found the allegations unclear and not supported by the sale deed's terms. The court agreed with the lower court's decision not to address this issue in the redemption suits, leaving it open for separate proceedings to determine any personal liability of the purchaser. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the decrees for redemption in favor of the mortgagors. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the mortgagors and the purchaser, with separate sets of costs for each party in each appeal, except for the advocate fees in one of the appeals.
|
