MRUTUNJAY PANI Vs. NARMADA BALA SASMAL
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
March 14,1961
MRUTUNJAY PANI
Appellant
VERSUS
NARMADA BALA SASMAL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SINGH RAM VS. SHEO RAM [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-39] [REFERRED TO]SULPHUR MILLS LIMITED VS. DAYAL FERTILIZERS PVT LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-170] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVYA KUMARI AND ANR. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
FAIZABAD AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
PARICHHAN MISTRY VS. ACHHIABAR MISTRY [LAWS(SC)-1996-8-131] [RELIED ON]
ERWIN B. KYNDIAH AND ORS. VS. SHARON A. PAKYNTEIN AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
KISHANLAL VS. HARGOVIND [LAWS(MPH)-1986-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
MS. JIGYA YADAV THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER MR. HARI SINGH VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-390] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
LALLU RAM VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
SATYANARAIN RAI VS. NATHUNI SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1983-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. PRAMOD KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI AMMA VS. RAJESWARY [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
ALLOKAM PEDDABBAYYA AND ANOTHER VS. ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR SAKHARAM KENJALE (DIED) VS. NARAYAN KRISHNA GADE [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
L SANKARAN LEKHSHMI VS. ADIMA KUNJU ABDHURAHIMAN KUNJU [LAWS(KER)-1963-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
TATA STEEL LIMITED VS. R.S. SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUNDAR MUNDA VS. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
DINKAR CHIMANLAL CHINAI VS. MADHUKAR CHIMANLAL CHINAI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
M V PREMKUMAR VS. C SREERAMA SETTY [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
ROSAMMA VS. B.V. RAMACHANDRAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. RAKESH BENIWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEV SHRIPATI NALE VS. BAPU GANAPATI JAGTAP [LAWS(SC)-1997-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
HARGOVIND VS. BALMUKUND [LAWS(MPH)-1994-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AMLO PROJECT VS. THEIR WORKMEN NAMELY GANESH TURI [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
RENUKA DATLA AND OTHERS VS. BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
SUREKA MODERN RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMTED [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALP YADAV VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
VAIBHAV PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-90] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAMACHARI AND OTHERS VS. M/S. TRICHSALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
SHARON A. PAKYNTEIN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAWATAR KUMAR CHANDRAVANSI VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUR RAHIM JIWANI VS. VITHALDAS RAMDAS [LAWS(BOM)-1980-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
MSM DISCOVERY PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESWAR PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
LEOLINE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGU SAVUNDIYAMMAN THIRUKOVIL VS. GOPAL RAJA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGATHAMMAL, PONNAMMAL AND MUTHUKUMAR ALIAS MURUGIAH VS. GURUNATHAN, THANGAMMAL (DIED) AND RAJESWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-937] [REFERRED]
IDEAL HOMES CO OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY VS. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK ABDUL KALAM AZAD AND ORS VS. A BABU AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-69] [REFERRED TO]
KOMATI REDDY VENKAT REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. V. NIRANJAN RAO, SECRETARY TO GOVT. AFFAIRS, STATE OF TELANGANA, LAW AND LEGISLATURE DEPT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
M R SATWAJI RAO VS. B SHAMA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLASIVALINGAM NADAR VS. ARULDAS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1974-3-37] [REFERRED]
CMJ FOUNDATION AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BIJU PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1990-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ALTERNATIVE FOR INDIA DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH MUNDA VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAGUNATH HARIJAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
HAQUIK MIAN VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1995-6-16] [FOLLOWED]
A GNANAM VS. PALANIAPPA AND CO [LAWS(MAD)-2000-9-8] [REFERRED]
MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF VS. BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
V. SENTHIL BALAJI VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR [LAWS(SC)-2023-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DEORAO JAVLE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS VS. KRISHNA & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
RANA MARBLE AND MINES, BHAKHARO KI DHANI, MAKRANA, DISTRICT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
DURGESH KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO RAM VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALP YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
YASIR ALI KHAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-164] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Subba Rao, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Orissa dated March 3, 1955, setting aside the judgment of the Court of the district Judge, Mayurbhanj and restoring that of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore.
(2.)The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Bhagaban Parida, On July 16, 1924, he executed a registered kabala for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of one Priyanath Sasmal. On June 2, 1928, Priyanath Sasmal executed a usufructurary mortgage bond (Ex. B) for Rs. 1,500/- in favour of Lakshminarayan Pani, the father of the appellants herein. Under the terms of the said usufructuary mortgage, the mortgaged property was put in possession of the mortgagee. One of the terms of the mortgage deed was that the initial responsibility for the payment of rent was that of the mortgagor and that, if for any reason he did not pay the arrears of rent, the mortgagee was under an obligation to pay off the arrears to the landlord and to obtain a receipt acknowledging the payment. the mortgagee did not pay the arrears of rent, with the result that for arrears of rent the said property was brought to sale and ultimately purchased by the mortgagee for a sum of Rs. 3000/- on September 22, 1936. The sale was confirmed on November 4, 1936, and the mortgagee took possession through Court on December 21, 1938. The mortgagor filed a suit against the mortgagee in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, for redemption of the mortgage and for possession. As the mortgagor died after the filing of the suit, his widow and son were brought on record as his legal representatives. The defence of the appellants to that suit was that possession was not delivered to their father, the mortgagee, under the terms of the mortgage deed, that the debt was discharged, that their father had purchased the equity of redemption in execution of the rent decree, and that the mortgagor had no longer any right to sue him for redemption. The learned Subordinate Judge and, on appeal, the District Judge concurrently found that in fact possession was delivered to the mortgagee on the basic of the mortgage deed and that the plea of discharge was not true; but, while the trial court held that after the purchase of the property by the mortgagee in execution of the decree for rent he was holding the property only on behalf of the mortgagor, the appellate court came to the conclusion that after the said purchase the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee came to an end; with the result the trial court decreed the suit and the appellate court, setting aside that decree, dismissed the suit. The legal representatives of the mortgagee preferred a second appeal to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the District Judge. A division bench of the High Court agreed with the conclusion of the trial court, set aside the decree of the District Court and restored that of the trial court. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants i.e., the legal representatives of the mortgagee, contended that in execution of the rent decree the mortgagee became the purchaser of the equity of redemption, with the result that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee ceased to exist and, therefore, the respondents could not sue for redemption and their remedy, if any ,was to sue for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud or otherwise.
(2.)The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Bhagaban Parida, On July 16, 1924, he executed a registered kabala for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of one Priyanath Sasmal. On June 2, 1928, Priyanath Sasmal executed a usufructurary mortgage bond (Ex. B) for Rs. 1,500/- in favour of Lakshminarayan Pani, the father of the appellants herein. Under the terms of the said usufructuary mortgage, the mortgaged property was put in possession of the mortgagee. One of the terms of the mortgage deed was that the initial responsibility for the payment of rent was that of the mortgagor and that, if for any reason he did not pay the arrears of rent, the mortgagee was under an obligation to pay off the arrears to the landlord and to obtain a receipt acknowledging the payment. the mortgagee did not pay the arrears of rent, with the result that for arrears of rent the said property was brought to sale and ultimately purchased by the mortgagee for a sum of Rs. 3000/- on September 22, 1936. The sale was confirmed on November 4, 1936, and the mortgagee took possession through Court on December 21, 1938. The mortgagor filed a suit against the mortgagee in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, for redemption of the mortgage and for possession. As the mortgagor died after the filing of the suit, his widow and son were brought on record as his legal representatives. The defence of the appellants to that suit was that possession was not delivered to their father, the mortgagee, under the terms of the mortgage deed, that the debt was discharged, that their father had purchased the equity of redemption in execution of the rent decree, and that the mortgagor had no longer any right to sue him for redemption. The learned Subordinate Judge and, on appeal, the District Judge concurrently found that in fact possession was delivered to the mortgagee on the basic of the mortgage deed and that the plea of discharge was not true; but, while the trial court held that after the purchase of the property by the mortgagee in execution of the decree for rent he was holding the property only on behalf of the mortgagor, the appellate court came to the conclusion that after the said purchase the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee came to an end; with the result the trial court decreed the suit and the appellate court, setting aside that decree, dismissed the suit. The legal representatives of the mortgagee preferred a second appeal to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the District Judge. A division bench of the High Court agreed with the conclusion of the trial court, set aside the decree of the District Court and restored that of the trial court. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants i.e., the legal representatives of the mortgagee, contended that in execution of the rent decree the mortgagee became the purchaser of the equity of redemption, with the result that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee ceased to exist and, therefore, the respondents could not sue for redemption and their remedy, if any ,was to sue for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud or otherwise.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.