1961 (3) TMI 88 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules mortgagee's purchase in rent sale held in trust for mortgagor under Indian Trusts Act

Mritunjoy Pani And Another Versus Narmanda Bala Sasmal And Another

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a mortgage dispute, ruling that the mortgagee's purchase of the property in a rent sale was held in ... Suit for redemption - Mortgage - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. All the courts concurrently found that in fact possession was delivered to the mortgagee on the basis of the mortgage deed, Ex. B. They have also found that the plea of discharge taken by the appellants was not true. The High Court found that under the mortgage deed the mortgagee had a duty to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord, but he made a default in paying the said arrears. The High Court farther held that the sale was the result of manifest dereliction of the duty imposed upon the mortgagee by the very terms of the transaction. The said findings clearly attract the provisions of s. 90 of the Indian Trusts Act. In view of the aforesaid principles, the right to redeem the mortgage is not extinguished and in the eye of law the purchase in the rent sale must be deemed to have been made in trust for the mortgagor. In the promises, the High Court was right in holding that the suit for redemption was maintainable. Issues:- Interpretation of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 in a mortgage dispute.- Determination of the legal status of a mortgagee who purchased the equity of redemption in a rent sale.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against a High Court judgment setting aside a District Judge's decision and restoring that of the Subordinate Judge. The dispute arose from a mortgage transaction where the mortgagee failed to pay rent, leading to the property's sale and subsequent purchase by the mortgagee. The key contention was whether the mortgagee's purchase extinguished the mortgagor's right to redemption. The High Court, applying Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, found the mortgagee's purchase to be in derogation of the mortgagor's rights, thus holding the purchase in trust for the mortgagor. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court.The legal representatives of the mortgagee argued that the purchase extinguished the mortgagor's right to redemption, suggesting the only remedy was to set aside the sale for fraud. Conversely, the respondents contended that the purchase, resulting from the mortgagee's breach of duty, created a trust relationship, allowing for redemption. The Court examined Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, emphasizing that a mortgagee gaining an advantage through breach of obligation holds the benefit for the interested parties. Illustrations under the Act supported the view that the mortgagee's duty was to act in the mortgagor's interest.Referring to precedent, the Court highlighted the principle that 'once a mortgage always a mortgage' unless terminated by specific actions. It differentiated cases where a mortgagee's purchase extinguished redemption rights from cases where the purchase was due to the mortgagee's default. In instances of default, the mortgage relationship remained, and the purchase was deemed a trust for the mortgagor. The Court concluded that the mortgagee's breach of duty in this case preserved the mortgagor's right to redemption, as the purchase was in trust for the mortgagor.In applying these principles to the facts, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the maintainability of the suit for redemption. The findings of the lower courts regarding possession delivery, default in rent payment, and breach of duty by the mortgagee supported the application of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act. Consequently, the mortgagor retained the right to redeem, and the mortgagee's purchase was held in trust. As no other points were raised, the appeal was dismissed with costs.