CHANDRAMANI PRADHAN Vs. HARI PASAYAT
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner Is the mortgagee. Opposite parties are the mortgagors. Opposite parties deposited Rs. 500/-towards the mortgage dues under Section 83 of the transfer of Property Act A notice was served on the petitioner by the court to accept this amount and to give delivery of possession of the mortgage security. The petitioner's case was that he was entitled to more money and the amount deposited would not satisfy the mortgage dues. The learned Munsif after having heard the parties directed the petitioner to accept the money deposited and deliver possession of the properties with necessary documents. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Aska, who held that no appeal lay. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif dated 7-91971.
(2.) THE order of the learned Munsif is wholly misconceived. Section 83 of the T. R act, so far as relevant, runs thus:-"at any time the principal money payable In respect of any mortgage has become due and before a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property is barred, the mortgagor, or any other person entitled to institute such suit, may deposit, in any Court in which he might have instituted such suit, to the account of the mortgagee, the amount remaining due on the mortgage. "
(3.) IT would thug be seen that the section does not make any provision to compel the mortgagee to accept the money deposited. The deposit is made only for the purpose of instituting a suit for redemption and before the suit Is filed the amount is to be deposited. When the mortgagee got notice under Section 83 of the T. P. Act he raised an objection that the amount deposited would not discharge the entire mortgage dues. He was un- willing to accent the money. The court has no power to compel the mortgagee to accept the amount;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.