Introduction:
In a recent judgment delivered on April 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, addressed the crucial issue of the right to redemption in the context of a usufructuary mortgage. The case, titled “Harminder Singh (D) Thr.Lrs. Versus Surjit Kaur(D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors.”, involved a dispute over the redemption of a mortgaged property.
Definition of Usufructuary Mortgage:
Before delving into the details of the case, it is essential to understand the concept of a usufructuary mortgage. Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 62 governs the provisions related to usufructuary mortgages. A usufructuary mortgage is a type of mortgage where the mortgagor transfers possession of the property to the mortgagee with the understanding that the mortgagee will retain the property’s income or profits until the debt is repaid.
Factual Background:
The case originated from the mortgaging of a share of land by Gulab Singh to Rajinder Singh on May 2, 1921. Following the death of Rajinder Singh without any heirs, his mortgagee rights were inherited by his wife, Rajinder Kaur. Eventually, Rajinder Kaur sold her mortgagee rights to the plaintiff through a sale deed dated June 18, 1979. Since the mortgagor did not redeem the mortgage within 30 years, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership after the extinguishment of the mortgage rights and a permanent injunction.
Judicial Proceedings:
The trial court decreed the suit, a decision upheld by the First Appellate Court. However, the Second Appeal by the mortgagor resulted in the dismissal of the suit, citing the precedent set in ‘Sampuran Singh Vs. Niranjan Kaur’ (1999) 2 SCC 679.
Significant Legal Developments:
After the initial judgment, a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in ‘Ram Kishan and others. Vs. Sheo Ram and others’ (AIR 2008 P&H 77), emphasized that a mortgagor has the right to redeem a usufructuary mortgage at any time, emphasizing the principle that “once a mortgage, always a mortgage.” This principle was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in ‘Singh Ram (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Sheo Ram and others’ (2014) 9 SCC 185.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
In light of the precedent established by the Full Bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed. The Court reiterated that the mortgagor retains the right to redeem the mortgage at any point, emphasizing the enduring nature of a usufructuary mortgage.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case underscores the fundamental principle that a usufructuary mortgage does not extinguish the mortgagor’s right to redeem the property. The judgment provides clarity on the legal standing of mortgagors in such situations, reaffirming the principle that the essence of a mortgage persists, allowing redemption even after an extended period.
