CHANDRAKANT SHANKARRAO MACHALE versus PARUBAI BHAIRU MOHITE

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1003 
CHANDRAKANT SHANKARRAO MACHALE 
A 
;:... ... 
v . 
PARUBAI BHAIRU MOHITE 
(Civil Appeal No. 1957 of 2008) 
MARCH 13, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
-!' 
Transfer of Property - Mortgage by a registered deed -
... 
Mortgagee getting possession of the property - Redemption 
of mortgage sought - Mortgagee stating to be in possession c 
of the property as a lessee by virtue of a subsequent 
unregistered agreement whereby right as a mortgagee was 
extinguished -
Held: Transferee could not prove his 
possession as a lessee - Mortgage deed being a registered 
deed could not have been altered by a subsequent D 
unregistered document . 
.Jf 
Deeds and Documents - Registered deed - Alteration 
' 
of - Held: Alteration of a registered document can be done 
only·by another registered document. 
The predecessor of the respondent had executed a E 
registered mortgage deed in favour of the appellant. The 
mortgage was for seven years. The possession of the 
mortgaged property was delivered to the appellant. After 
expiry of seven years, since his predecessor had expired, 
respondent issued notice to the appellant seeking 
F 
redemption of the mortgage. As the same was not acted 
upon, he filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. Appellant 
contested the suit on the ground that by a subsequent 
unregistered agreement between the parties, right of the 
appellant as a mortgagee had been extinguished and by G 
virtue of that document appellant acquired interest in the 
suit property as a tenant. Trial Court dismissed the suit, 
relying on the subsequent agreement. First appollate 
court decreed the suit. Second appeal was dismissed by 
1003 
H 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Deed of Mortgage was a registered 
document. The terms of a registered document could be 
B varied or altered only by another registered document. A 
finding of fact has been arrived at that the appellant could 
not prove his possession as a tenant. The appellant was 
put in possession as a mortgagee. It was, therefore, 
impermissible in law to change his status from a 
C mortgagee to that of a lessee by reason of an 
unregistered deed of lease (even if it is assumed that 
the same had been executed). [Para 11] [1008-G, H; 
1009-A, B] 
S. Saktivel(dead) by LRs. v. M. Venugopal Pillai and 
D Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2633- relied on. 
Gopa/an Krishnakutty v. Kunjamma Pillai Sarojini Am ma 
and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 424- distinguished. 
2. The case as to whether the interest of a lessee 
E merged with the interest of a mortgagee would depend 
upon facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot 
be any hard and fast rule for arriving at only one decision 
as the decision thereupon~ill depend upon the terms of 
the document. [Para 15] [1010-FJ 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1957 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment dated 28.11.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in S.A. No. 722/2000 
G 
S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the 
Appellant. 
. H.l. Tiku, Yashmeet Kaur and Ashok K. Mahajan for the 
Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• CHANDRAKANT SHANKARRAO MACHALE v. PARUBAI 
1005 
BHAIRU MOHITE [S.S. SINHA, J.]. 
,x 
S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
.. 
2. Appellant was the owner of a house property situated in 
Taluka Gandhinglaj, District Kolhapur. On 28.2.1983, Bhairu 
Rama Mohite and Krishna Rama Mohite (the predecessor of 
the first respondent herein) executed a registered deed of 
B 
mortgage in favour of the appellant. The possession of the said 
property was delivered in favour of the mortgagee. The period 
:;· 
prescribed in the said Deed of Mortgage was seven years. The 
4' 
amount of mortgage was Rs.20,000/-. It was agreed that upon 
expiry of the said period, the property would revert back to the 
mortgagor. 
c 
3. Allegedly, an unregistered agreement was entered into 
by and between the parties herein, stating : 
"This agreement in writing executed by us in respect of 
land C.S. No.1943 admeasuring 252 Sq. meters situated 
D 
,; 
Mouje Gadhinglj which includes house and open space 
\ 
belongs to us absolutely. Earlier the house admeasuring 
East West 39 feet i.e. 11 meters 89 centimeters ar)d ' 
South-North 49 feet i.e. 14 meters 94 centimeters, totally 
adm.177.63 59 meters house as also the open space in 
E 
front of the house East. West 21.89 meters and Sou

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