TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a subsequent suit for redemption is barred by Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when an earlier redemption suit had abated, or whether the mortgagor's substantive right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 remains enforceable until extinguished by a decree of court or by act of parties.
Analysis: The right of redemption is a substantive right conferred by Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and it continues until it is extinguished only in the manner recognised by that provision. An abatement of the earlier suit does not amount to a decree or order extinguishing that right. The general procedural bar in Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot override the special statutory right of redemption. The Court followed its earlier view that procedural rules regarding dismissal or abatement do not destroy the underlying mortgage right, and held that the mortgagor may institute a fresh suit so long as the right to redeem survives.
Conclusion: The subsequent redemption suit was maintainable and was not barred by Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and was dismissed with costs, the decree of the lower Court being affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: A mortgagor's right of redemption, being a statutory substantive right, is not extinguished by mere abatement or dismissal of an earlier suit unless it is extinguished in the manner expressly provided by Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; procedural bars cannot override that right.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
