Constructive notice from registered mortgages and mortgage enforcement over a later superstructure prevail against bona fide purchase and res judicata objections.

Registered mortgages were treated as giving constructive notice to a later transferee, and the third defendant was found to have actual knowledge of the prior encumbrances, so the plea of bona fide purchase failed. The mortgagees could also enforce their security against the superstructure erected by the life tenant because the mortgage deeds covered future constructions and the building was treated as part of the mortgage security. Proceedings under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act were held to be summary and incapable of deciding title, so the earlier receiver order did not operate as res judicata. The discussion thus favours enforcement of prior mortgage rights and rejects both the bona fide transferee and res judicata objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the third defendant was a bona fide transferee without notice of the earlier registered mortgages; (ii) Whether the mortgagees could enforce their security against the superstructure newly erected by the life tenant; (iii) Whether the order made in proceedings under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act operated as res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether the third defendant was a bona fide transferee without notice of the earlier registered mortgages.

Analysis: The mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs were registered, so constructive notice was attributable to a subsequent transferee. The sale deed in favour of the third defendant could not override the prior mortgage rights. On the facts, the third defendant was found to have full knowledge of the mortgages and to be closely connected with the mortgagor.

Conclusion: The third defendant was not a bona fide transferee, and the finding was against her.

Issue (ii): Whether the mortgagees could enforce their security against the superstructure newly erected by the life tenant.

Analysis: The mortgage deeds expressly covered the land, the existing building, and any future building that might be erected. The English doctrine that what is affixed to the soil becomes part of the soil was held inapplicable in India in this context. A building erected by a person in possession under a bona fide title or claim of title does not automatically vest in the owner of the land, and the superstructure here was treated as separately enforceable security under the mortgage.

Conclusion: The mortgagees were entitled to enforce the mortgage against the newly constructed superstructure, and this issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue (iii): Whether the order made in proceedings under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act operated as res judicata.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 69-A were held to be summary in character and confined to the limited statutory purpose of appointment of a receiver. The court in such proceedings had no jurisdiction to adjudicate competing titles. As the prior order did not amount to a decision on title, the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The earlier order did not operate as res judicata, and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substance, and the plaintiffs were granted mortgage relief against the superstructure, while the res judicata objection and the plea of bona fide purchase were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Registered mortgages create constructive notice to subsequent transferees, buildings erected under a bona fide title do not automatically merge with the soil for all purposes, and summary proceedings that lack jurisdiction to decide title do not attract res judicata.

---