Supreme Court Upholds Judgment Requiring Defendants to Surrender Rights to Plaintiffs

Jyasing Dnyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. Versus Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr.

Jyasing Dnyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. Versus Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr. - 1985 AIR 1646, 1985 SCR Supl. (2)308, 1985 SCC (4) 162, 1985 SCALE (2)94 Issues Involved:
1. Right of Redemption
2. Extinguishment of Right to Redeem
3. Application of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882
4. Grant of Occupancy Rights
5. Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Redemption:
The core issue revolves around the plaintiffs' right to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiffs, who were permanent Mirasi tenants, mortgaged their share in certain lands to the defendants for a loan of Rs. 1,000. The mortgage was for five years, and the mortgagees were entitled to appropriate the income from the mortgaged property towards interest. The plaintiffs initiated a suit for redemption after an unsuccessful attempt to redeem the mortgage under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. Extinguishment of Right to Redeem:
The defendants argued that the right of the mortgagors to redeem the mortgage had become extinguished because the mortgaged lands had been granted to the defendants by the Government after the abolition of the Watans. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision, directing the plaintiffs to pay the mortgage amount along with an additional sum equivalent to half of the occupancy price paid by the defendants.

3. Application of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882:
The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which states that if a mortgagee gains an advantage by availing himself of his position, he must hold that advantage for the benefit of the mortgagor. The Court concluded that the mortgagees (defendants) gained the occupancy rights by availing themselves of their position as mortgagees, which was in derogation of the plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, the defendants are obligated to hold the acquired rights for the benefit of the plaintiffs, subject to repayment of expenses incurred in securing the grant.

4. Grant of Occupancy Rights:
The lands in question were Paragana Watan Inam lands, and after the abolition of the Watans under the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, the lands were to be regranted to the holders of the watan upon payment of the occupancy price. The defendants secured the grant of occupancy rights by representing themselves as permanent Mirasi tenants, although they were only mortgagees. The Court held that the defendants could not have secured the grant without being in possession of the lands due to the mortgage, and thus, they must surrender the advantage gained to the plaintiffs.

5. Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties:
The appellants contended that no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs because Pandu Krishna, another grantee, had not been impleaded. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the grant by the Prant Officer was made in specific shares, and the case concerned only the half share granted to the mortgagees. The non-impleadment of Pandu Krishna did not affect the plaintiffs' right to redeem their mortgaged share.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court, holding that the defendants must surrender the occupancy rights gained to the plaintiffs, subject to the repayment of expenses incurred. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the plaintiffs' right to redeem the mortgage.