9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to direct rendition of accounts post-preliminary decree. 2. Estoppel against mortgagee regarding liability to render accounts. 3. Equities in favor of the mortgagee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Direct Rendition of Accounts Post-Preliminary Decree: The appellants argued that a preliminary decree settles all controversies and merges the mortgage into the decree, thus precluding any further relief based on the mortgage terms. They contended that since the preliminary decree did not direct the mortgagee to render accounts for profits from the mortgaged properties, the court lacked jurisdiction to order such an accounting post-decree. The respondents countered that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee continues until the final decree, maintaining the mortgagee's statutory liability to account for profits received. They asserted that the mortgagee's liability to account for profits persists until the final decree, regardless of whether the preliminary decree explicitly addressed this. The court held that the statutory liability under Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act requires the mortgagee to account for net receipts from the mortgaged property. The preliminary decree must ascertain the amount due to the mortgagee, deducting net profits realized. The court emphasized that the preliminary decree is final regarding disputes up to its date, but does not cover net receipts realized by the mortgagee post-preliminary decree. Thus, the mortgagee must account for profits realized after the preliminary decree. 2. Estoppel Against Mortgagee Regarding Liability to Render Accounts: The respondents argued that the mortgagee was estopped from denying liability to account for profits realized between the plaint filing and the preliminary decree. They cited the mortgagee's admissions in court filings, acknowledging the realization of rents and the obligation to account for them. The court examined the conditions for estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act: representation, action on the representation, and resulting detriment. It found that while the mortgagee admitted liability to account for net receipts, the respondents did not suffer detriment by acting on this admission. The respondents' payment of the decretal amount was a legal obligation, not a detriment. Thus, the doctrine of estoppel was inapplicable. 3. Equities in Favor of the Mortgagee: The appellants argued that the High Court failed to consider equities favoring the mortgagee, specifically the mortgagee's right to remain in possession until full payment, including interest disallowed by the lower court. The court acknowledged the mortgagee's right to possession until the full mortgage debt, including interest, was paid. However, it reiterated that this right does not negate the statutory obligation to account for net receipts from the mortgaged property. The court balanced the equities by ensuring the mortgagee's right to possession while enforcing the statutory duty to account for profits realized. Conclusion: The Supreme Court modified the Rajasthan High Court's order, affirming the mortgagee's liability to account for net receipts post-preliminary decree but limiting the accounting period to after the preliminary decree. The parties were directed to bear proportionate costs.
|
