1963 (12) TMI 28 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds mortgage terms, orders interest on redemption, and costs to appellants.

C. Beepathumma And Ors. Versus V.S. Kadambolithaya And Ors.

The court partly allowed the appeal in a case involving the limitation period for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage and entitlement to mesne profits. ... - Issues Involved1. Limitation Period for Redemption2. Doctrine of Election3. Entitlement to Mesne ProfitsDetailed Analysis1. Limitation Period for RedemptionThe core issue was whether the suit for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs argued that the right of redemption accrued on April 27, 1902, due to the 40-year term stipulated in Ex. P-2, making the suit filed in 1944 within the 60-year limitation period prescribed by Article 148 of the Indian Limitation Act. The defense contended that Kunhi Pakki, a minor at the time Ex. P-2 was executed, was not bound by it, and thus the limitation period should run from the original mortgage date in 1842. The court held that the doctrine of election applied, meaning Kunhi Pakki and his successors, having accepted benefits under Ex. P-2, were bound by its terms, making the suit timely.2. Doctrine of ElectionThe court applied the doctrine of election, which dictates that 'he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument must adopt the whole contents of that instrument.' This principle was used to bind Kunhi Pakki to Ex. P-2, despite his minority at the time of its execution. The court noted that Kunhi Pakki had accepted benefits under Ex. P-2 and subsequent documents, indicating his acceptance of the terms. Thus, his successors could not repudiate the document to claim an earlier limitation period. The court concluded that the doctrine of election was correctly applied by the lower courts.3. Entitlement to Mesne ProfitsThe appellants argued that mesne profits should not be awarded from the date fixed for redemption until full payment, including compensation for improvements, was made. The court found that the mortgage terms required the mortgagors to pay the principal and compensation for improvements in one lump sum. Therefore, the mortgagees were not obligated to hand over possession or pay mesne profits until the full amount was paid. However, the court ruled that the mortgagees must pay interest on the amount deposited by the mortgagors from the date of withdrawal until possession was delivered, at 6% per annum simple interest, to ensure equitable adjustment of accounts.ConclusionThe appeal was partly allowed. The court upheld the application of the doctrine of election, binding Kunhi Pakki and his successors to the terms of Ex. P-2, thereby validating the suit's timeliness. However, it modified the lower courts' decisions regarding mesne profits, requiring the mortgagees to pay interest on the deposited redemption amount until possession was delivered. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondents.