Partial redemption and pardanashin lady transactions require proper framing, full understanding, and independent advice before enforcement.

A mortgage over the whole property in favour of two mortgagees as tenants in common could not be redeemed by paying only one mortgagee, because partial relief under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act was not available on that framing; the proper course was to implead the co-mortgagee and seek amendment of the plaint, so the defect was procedural rather than fatal. A compromise mortgage executed by a pardanashin lady was upheld because the evidence showed she understood the nature and effect of the transaction, there was no concealment, undue influence or misrepresentation, and she had independent and disinterested advice. The decree was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mortgage suit as framed was maintainable in view of the nature of the mortgage and the rule against partial relief under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (ii) whether the compromise mortgage executed by a pardanashin lady was binding in the absence of proof of independent and disinterested advice.

Issue (i): whether the mortgage suit as framed was maintainable in view of the nature of the mortgage and the rule against partial relief under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The mortgage conveyed the whole property to two mortgagees as tenants in common and did not create two separate divided mortgages. In such a case, redemption of part of the property by paying one mortgagee alone was not permissible. The proper course was to implead the co-mortgagee and seek a properly framed mortgage decree. The defect was one of form and could be cured by amendment of the plaint.

Conclusion: The suit was not properly framed, but the defect was amendable and did not defeat the claim.

Issue (ii): whether the compromise mortgage executed by a pardanashin lady was binding in the absence of proof of independent and disinterested advice.

Analysis: In transactions involving a pardanashin lady, it is sufficient if the general effect of the transaction is understood and competent, disinterested advice is given. The concurrent findings were that the lady understood the nature and effect of the transaction, nothing was concealed, there was no undue influence or misrepresentation, and she had independent and disinterested advice. Those findings of fact were not to be disturbed.

Conclusion: The mortgage was binding on the pardanashin lady.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the procedural and substantive grounds, and the decree under challenge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mortgage by one mortgagor to two tenants in common cannot be enforced by claiming partial redemption against only one mortgagee, and a transaction executed by a pardanashin lady will be upheld where the evidence shows full understanding of its nature and effect and independent, disinterested advice.

---