1925 (1) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Patna HC Voids 1889 Sale Deed; Heirs to Redeem Property with Rs. 2,000 Plus Interest; Six-Month Window Set.

The HC of Patna annulled a sale deed from June 13, 1889, in a case initiated by the reversionary heirs of Sitaram Singh, determining the absence of legal ... Usufructuary mortgage - right of redemption - recital in sale deed as evidence - burden of proof to show absence of other properties - equitable remedy of redemption upon payment and interestUsufructuary mortgage - recital in sale deed as evidence - burden of proof to show absence of other properties - Whether the widow was entitled to sell the mortgaged property to discharge the usufructuary mortgage and other alleged necessities. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the recital in the sale deed, while admissible as evidence for the defendants, did not absolve them of the burden to prove that the widow had no other properties from which the required money could be raised. There is no evidence that other properties were unavailable; consequently the widow was not entitled to effect a sale of the mortgaged property to raise the mortgage amount. The determinative reasoning is that, in the absence of proof that no other source existed, sale of the mortgaged property (thereby prejudicing the mortgagor's right) was not justified. [Paras 5]Sale of the mortgaged property was not justified; defendants failed to prove absence of other properties and the sale cannot stand on that ground.Right of redemption - equitable remedy of redemption upon payment and interest - Relief available to the plaintiffs consequent upon invalidation of the sale. - HELD THAT: - Having held the sale was not justified, the Court recognised the plaintiffs' right to recover the property on payment to the defendants. The Court directed redemption upon payment of the sum and interest as specified in the decree and granted a time period within which redemption must be effected. This constitutes an equitable remedy restoring the plaintiffs' proprietary right subject to making good the mortgagee's legitimate monetary claim with interest. [Paras 6, 7]Plaintiffs entitled to redeem the property by payment of the amount and interest as directed by the Court within the time granted.Final Conclusion: The decree of sale is set aside insofar as it effected sale of the mortgaged property; plaintiffs may redeem the property on payment of the amount and interest as directed by the Court within six months. The High Court of Patna set aside a deed of sale dated June 13, 1889, in a suit brought by reversionary heirs of Sitaram Singh, ruling that there was no legal necessity for the transaction. The defendants were ordered to return the property upon payment of Rs. 2,000 with interest. The plaintiffs were given six months to redeem the property.