RAMPRASAD MADDULAL VAISHYA Vs. BADRILAL PANNALAL
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-43
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: GWALIOR)
Decided on September 02,1980

RAMPRASAD MADDULAL VAISHYA Appellant
VERSUS
BADRILAL PANNALAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ALADADKHAN KALUKHAN V. KAZI NASRUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA FILM CORPORATION LTD. V. RAJA GYANNATH [REFERRED TO]
ASA RAM VS. RAM KALI [REFERRED TO]
SACHALMAL PARASRAM VS. RATNABAI [REFERRED TO]
MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. LADHA RAM AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VS. RAMCHARANLAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

Jagdish Kumar Pathak VS. Bhagwandas [LAWS(MPH)-1994-4-88] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS second appeal was admitted for hearing only on the following substantial question of law-
"can, in a suit for redemption of an anomalous mortgage as here, the tenant inducted by the mortgagee on the mortgaged property of which he held vacant possession under the terms of the mortgage, be legally made to deliver vacant possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagor on redemption of the mortgage?"

(2.)THE facts are as follows. By a registered deed dated 20-5-1960, the respondent No. 1 Badrilal mortgaged with possession certain premises, described as shop, situated at Sheopur Kalan, with the respondent No. 2 mathuralal for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. The terms of the mortgage provided that the mortgagor would be entitled to get back possession of the. shop on redemption. It was an anomalous mortgage. Afterwards, the mortgagee let out the shop to the appellant Ramprasad on monthly rent of Rs. 70 and placed him in possession thereof. Thereafter, the mortgagor, i. e. the respondent No. 1 instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, against the mortgagee, i. e. the respondent No. 2 Mathuralal and the tenant Ramprasad, i. e. the appellant, for redemption of the mortgage claiming possession of the shop from both of them on redemption. The respondent No. 2 Mathuralal, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit contended that it was not possible for him to get the shop vacated by the appellant (defendant No. 2) although he (respondent No. 2) was prepared to give possession and that the plaintiff, i. e. the respondent No. 1 was at liberty to obtain possession thereof from the tenant, i. e. the appellant. The appellant (defendant No. 2) contended that, on redemption of the mortgage, he would become tenant of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1), and, therefore, his possession would be protected by provisions of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial Court negatived the appellant's contention and passed a preliminary decree for redemption, directing both the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the shop on redemption. First appeal, preferred by the defendant No. 2 Ramprasad, the tenant, against that decree, was dismissed by the additional District Judge, Sheopur-Kalan. Being aggrieved, he filed this second appeal.
(3.)UNDER section 111 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immovable property determines, where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same extends to the happening of any event-by the happening of such event. Under section 76 (a), where, during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property, he must manage the property as a person of ordinary prudence would manage it if it were his own.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.