Specific enforcement of mortgage security upheld where a third-party promise was supported by consideration and the flat was mortgageable.

A contract to execute a mortgage for securing an already advanced loan is specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act. A third party's undertaking to provide mortgage security for another's debt is supported by valid consideration where the promise benefits the principal debtor or the creditor forbears recovery, and it operates within the law of guarantee. A member's interest in a co-operative housing flat is transferable enough to be mortgaged notwithstanding society bye-law formalities. A suit for specific performance of the mortgage promise is not defeated by non-joinder of the principal debtor when no relief is sought against him and effective adjudication can be made in his absence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an agreement to execute a mortgage is specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act; (ii) whether a third party's promise to furnish mortgage security for another's debt is supported by valid consideration and falls within the law of guarantee; (iii) whether a member's interest in a flat in a co-operative housing society can be mortgaged; and (iv) whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the principal debtor.

Issue (i): whether an agreement to execute a mortgage is specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: The statutory exception in Section 14(3)(a)(i) permits specific enforcement of a contract to execute a mortgage or furnish other security for repayment of a loan not then being repaid at once. The agreement here was not one to lend money, but one to secure money already advanced. A contract of this nature is therefore enforceable by specific performance.

Conclusion: The agreement to execute the mortgage was specifically enforceable.

Issue (ii): whether a third party's promise to furnish mortgage security for another's debt is supported by valid consideration and falls within the law of guarantee.

Analysis: Under the law of guarantee, a promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor is sufficient consideration to the surety. The defendant undertook to provide collateral security for the debtor's liability, thereby assuming the position of a surety to the extent of the security offered. Past advancement of loans to the principal debtor, together with the creditor's forbearance to press recovery, constituted sufficient consideration for the undertaking. Sections 126, 127 and 128 of the Contract Act support the validity of such an arrangement.

Conclusion: The promise was supported by valid consideration and was binding and enforceable.

Issue (iii): whether a member's interest in a flat in a co-operative housing society can be mortgaged.

Analysis: The interest of a member in a co-operative housing flat is not immune from transfer or attachment merely because procedural formalities may be required under the society's bye-laws. Such interest has transferable value in law and can form the subject of security. The flat was therefore capable of being mortgaged.

Conclusion: The flat could validly be mortgaged.

Issue (iv): whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the principal debtor.

Analysis: The relief claimed was confined to specific performance of the defendant's own promise to execute the mortgage. No relief was sought against the principal debtor, and effective adjudication could be made in his absence. He was neither a necessary nor a proper party to such a suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not bad for non-joinder of the principal debtor.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court was set aside and the plaintiff was held entitled to enforce the agreement by execution of the mortgage security.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract to execute a mortgage for securing an already advanced loan is specifically enforceable, and a third party's promise to provide such security is valid when supported by consideration flowing from the benefit conferred on the principal debtor or by forbearance to recover the debt.

---