Skip to main content

The equity of redemption is a right which is subsidiary to the right of ownership: Supreme Court

The equity of redemption is a right which is subsidiary to the right of ownership: Supreme Court

By - Hiranmayi Gowravajhula*

A Supreme court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna, on Tuesday, observed that the right of equity of redemption is not over and above the right of ownership. “The expression equity of redemption is a convenient maxim, but an owner who has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor after purchasing the property from the mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act.”, the bench observed.

The mortgagee in this case filed a lawsuit against the mortgagors to reclaim the mortgage amount. This lawsuit resulted in the mortgagors’ right to redeem the property being revoked. Following that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the original mortgagors and the mortgagee, requesting that the mortgaged property be redeemed. He claimed that the mortgagors had sold him the mortgaged land, and that he had therefore taken their place in the selling transaction. 

Also Read - We hope and trust that the Union of India will proceed to pass suitable orders and directions regarding use of PVC and chlorinated plastics in banners/hoardings used during elections: Supreme Court

The claim was rejected by the Trial Court, but the First Appellate Court found that, under Sections 59A and 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee should have made the plaintiff a party because he acquired the land before the suit was filed. The Appellate Court’s decision was set aside by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

One of the issues before the bench was whether the plaintiff was a required party in a mortgagee's post-purchase foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff was correct in claiming that he needed to be impleaded because he was a necessary party in a foreclosure complaint brought by the mortgagee following the procurement of a portion of the mortgaged land. 

Also Read - Bombay High Court directs stay of operation of sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 9 of the Information Technology Rules, 2021

Further, the court observed that the right of redemption is a subordinate right to the right of ownership and that such a right does not supersede the plaintiff's right of ownership. According to the bench, the decree issued at the back of the transferee mortgagor prior to the commencement of the foreclosure complaint was not legitimate.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Hiranmayi Gowravajhula is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more