A.B. GOVARDHAN versus P. RAGOTHAMAN

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 29-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1002 : 2024 INSC 640
A.B. Govardhan 
v. 
P. Ragothaman
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9975-9976 of 2024)
29 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed 
to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the 
loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there 
was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly 
held the agreement to be a mortgage in view of Section 58(f) of 
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan 
obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant-
plaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent 
produced title document of his property as security towards 
debt and agreed to register the Sale Deed as and when 
demanded – However, later neither the respondent executed 
the Sale Deed nor paid the balance sum – Agreement, if was a 
mortgage – Whether the respondent by way of the agreement 
created a equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds:
Held: Yes – There was no redemption of this mortgage – Division 
Bench erred in holding that the plaint averments did not conclude 
that there was a valid mortgage entitling the appellant-plaintiff 
to sue for a mortgage decree – Single Judge correctly held the 
agreement to be a mortgage in view of s.58(f) of the 1882 Act – 
Respondent admitted execution of the agreement (Exhibit P-1) 
however, claimed coercion but led no evidence to support this 
plea – Further, the agreement only recorded what had happened 
and did not create/extinguish rights/liabilities and therefore covered 
by para 14.3 of Narvir Singh and did not require registration – 
Impugned orders set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge 
restored with modification. [Paras 22, 29, 33]
Pleadings – Evidence – Every fact pleaded has to be 
substantiated: 
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
1003
A.B. Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman 
Held: For every pleaded fact, there has to be evidence, oral or 
documentary, to substantiate the same – A bald averment or 
mere statement by a defendant bereft of evidentiary material to 
back up such averment/statement takes such defendant’s case 
nowhere. [Para 24]
Delay – Condonation – Liberal approach – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v Narvir Singh [2013] 9 SCR 949 : (2014) 1 
SCC 105 – relied on.
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v Ashutosh Agnihotri [2011] 1 SCR 796 : 
(2011) 2 SCC 532; Syndicate Bank v Estate Officer & Manager, 
APIIC Ltd. [2007] 9 SCR 619 : (2007) 8 SCC 361; Syndicate 
Bank v Estate Officer and Manager (Recoveries), Andhra 
Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (2021) 3 
SCC 736; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst Katiji  
[1987] 2 SCR 387 : (1987) 2 SCC 107; Esha Bhattacharjee v. 
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [2013] 9 
SCR 782 : (2013) 12 SCC 649; N L Abhyankar v Union of India 
(1995) 1 MhLJ 503; M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company 
Limited v District Board, Bhojpur [1992] 2 SCR 155 : (1992) 2 SCC 
598; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v Shah Hyder Beig [1999] 
Supp. 5 SCR 197 : (2000) 2 SCC 48; Mool Chandra v Union of 
India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 – referred to.
List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
List of Keywords
Mortgage; Mortgage deed; Equitable mortgage by depositing title 
deeds; Loan; Redemption of the mortgage; Mortgage decree; 
Promissory notes; Registration; Delay condonation; Liberal 
approach; Pleadings; Evidence.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9975-9976 of 
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2018 and 22.02.2017 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMP No. 10107 of 2017 
and OSA No. 189 of 2011 respectively
1004
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Narendra Kumar, V. Balaji, Atul Sharma, Asaithambi MSM, R. Mohan, 
A. Krishna Kumar, C. Kannan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv., S. Rajappa, Ms. Jyoti Singh, R Gowrishankar, 
N J Ramchandar, Ms. Jyoti Parasher, Rakesh Ranjan, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and 
Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior counsel for the respondent. 
2.	
Leave granted. The pending applications shall be dealt with in the 
final pages of this judgment.
3.	
The present appeals germinate from the: 
3.1.	 Final Judgm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.