TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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: (i) Whether the purchaser from the mortgagor was a necessary party to the foreclosure suit; (ii) Whether the decree obtained in the foreclosure suit operated as res judicata and extinguished the right of redemption; (iii) Whether the purchaser could redeem the share of the property purchased by him on payment of the entire mortgage amount.
Issue (i): Whether the purchaser from the mortgagor was a necessary party to the foreclosure suit?
Analysis: A person who purchases mortgaged property from the mortgagor before institution of the foreclosure suit steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and acquires the equity of redemption. Such a transferee is covered by the expression mortgagor for the purposes of the mortgage chapter, and all persons having an interest in the mortgage-security or in the right of redemption are required to be joined in a suit relating to the mortgage. The compromise and decree obtained only against the original mortgagors, without impleading the subsequent purchaser, could not bind him. The record also supported the purchaser's possession and the mortgagee's knowledge of the transfer.
Conclusion: The purchaser was a necessary party, and non-impleadment rendered the foreclosure decree ineffective against him.
Issue (ii): Whether the decree obtained in the foreclosure suit operated as res judicata and extinguished the right of redemption?
Analysis: An application only for stay of execution did not amount to an adjudication of rights with the force of a decree, and its dismissal could not operate as res judicata. The right of redemption is a statutory right and can be extinguished only by act of parties or by a valid decree of court. A decree passed behind the back of a necessary party, and in circumstances showing collusion between the original mortgagors and the mortgagee, was not a valid decree capable of extinguishing redemption rights.
Conclusion: The foreclosure decree did not operate as res judicata and did not extinguish the right of redemption.
Issue (iii): Whether the purchaser could redeem the share of the property purchased by him on payment of the entire mortgage amount?
Analysis: A purchaser from the mortgagor who acquires the whole interest in a defined portion of mortgaged land may redeem that portion, provided the mortgage money is paid in full. The statutory restriction against partial redemption applies to a person interested only in a share of the mortgaged property, not to a transferee of the mortgagor's entire interest in the purchased parcel. Since the appellant had purchased the whole interest in the identified parcel, he was entitled to redeem that parcel on payment of the whole mortgage debt.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to redeem the purchased parcel on payment of the entire mortgage amount.
Final Conclusion: The decree of foreclosure could not defeat the redemption rights of the transferee mortgagor, and the appellant was entitled to relief by setting aside the High Court's view and restoring the first appellate court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A transferee of the mortgagor's interest in mortgaged property, acquired before a foreclosure suit is filed, is a necessary party to such suit and retains the statutory right of redemption unless that right is extinguished by a valid decree passed in his presence.
TaxTMI 
