TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules mortgage ended upon full payment, denies recovery under Land Reforms Act.</h1> <h3>Prithi Nath Singh and Ors. Versus Suraj Ahir and Ors.</h3> Prithi Nath Singh and Ors. Versus Suraj Ahir and Ors. - AIR 1963 SC 1041, [1963] 3 SCR 302 Issues:- Interpretation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 regarding the right to recover possession.- Determination of the subsistence of a mortgage post-payment of mortgage money.- Analysis of the right to redeem under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act.Analysis:The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960, holding that the respondents lost their right to recover possession due to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that the mortgage ceased to subsist once the mortgage money was paid, as per Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. The definition of usufructuary mortgage also supported this conclusion, stating that the mortgagee's authority to retain possession ends upon payment. The respondents argued that the mortgage continued until the right of redemption expired, citing a previous case, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing that a mortgage cannot exist after the loan is repaid.The Court analyzed the right to redeem under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. It explained that the mortgagor's right to demand certain actions from the mortgagee upon payment of the mortgage money is distinct from enforcing those demands post-payment. The Court clarified that once the mortgage money is paid, the right to redeem ceases, and any suit thereafter is not for redemption. Various cases were cited to support this interpretation, highlighting that the right of redemption presupposes the existence of a mortgage, which ceases upon full payment. The Court emphasized that the right to redeem can only be extinguished by the act of parties or a court decree, and once the mortgage money is paid, no further action for redemption can be pursued.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the review petition, reiterating that the mortgage was not subsisting at the date of vesting, having terminated upon full payment in 1943. The respondents were deemed ineligible to benefit from the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing mortgages, redemption rights, and the cessation of mortgage upon full repayment.
TaxTMI 