2000 (3) TMI 1102 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disputed land is liable to be redeemed in favor of the plaintiff.
2. Whether the period of 99 years of mortgage constitutes a clog on the equity of redemption.
3. Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to file the suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the Disputed Land to be Redeemed:
The respondent-plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed property and filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against the appellants. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing delivery of possession upon payment of the mortgage money of Rs. 7,000/-. The First Appellate Court and the High Court upheld this decision. The appellants contended that the suit was premature as it was filed before the expiry of the stipulated mortgage period of 99 years, referencing Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgment in Ganga Dhar vs. Shankar Lal [AIR 1958 SC 770].

2. Clog on the Equity of Redemption:
The Trial Court held that the 99-year mortgage period constituted a clog on the equity of redemption, making it illegal and void. This decision was supported by the precedent in Ajit Singh vs. Kakhbir Singh and others, which states that any condition impeding the statutory right of redemption is invalid. The appellate courts agreed, noting that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the entire property by paying the mortgage money, despite having purchased only part of the mortgaged land.

3. Plaintiff's Locus Standi:
The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit as they had become the mortgagor after purchasing the land. The appellate courts confirmed this, stating that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the property before the 99-year period stipulated in the mortgage deed.

Legal Principles and Precedents:
Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act provides the mortgagor the right to redeem the mortgaged property upon payment of the mortgage money. This right is statutory and cannot be extinguished by any agreement at the time of the mortgage. The Supreme Court in Jayasingh Dnyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. vs. Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr. [AIR 1985 SC 1646] reaffirmed that the right of redemption can only end in a legally recognized manner and that any provision preventing redemption is void.

In Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal [AIR 1958 SC 770], the Court held that a mortgage must always be redeemable, and any provision to the contrary is void. Similarly, in Pomal Kanji Govindji & Ors. v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit & Ors. [AIR 1989 SC 436], the Court stated that freedom of contract is permissible as long as it does not exploit the oppressed. The doctrine of clog on equity of redemption is a rule of justice, equity, and good conscience, adaptable to the circumstances of each case.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the lower courts that the 99-year mortgage period was a clog on the equity of redemption. The mortgage was deemed oppressive given the financial conditions of the mortgagor at the time of execution. The appellants' advantageous position and the long period of deriving usufructs from the mortgaged land for a meager sum further justified this conclusion. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.