DR. THAKAR SINGH versus SH. MULA SINGH (D) THR. LR. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 953 · Decided: 14-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 10 S.C.R. 953 
DR. THAKAR SINGH (0) BY LRS. & ANR. 
v. 
SH. MULA SINGH (D) THR. LR. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1740 of 2007) 
OCTOBER 14, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 
A 
B 
S. 111 rlw ss. 72 and 76 - Determination of lease c 
executed by mortgagees - Redemption of mortgage -
Mortgagees were entitled to create tenancies by virtue of 
mortgage deed - However, there is nothing in mortgage deed 
to indicate that tenancies created by mortgagees would be 
binding on mortgagors. 
o 
In the instant appeal arising out of a suit by the 
mortgagors for possession of the mortgaged property 
leased by the mortgagees, the question for consideration 
before the Court was whether the suit was barred under 
the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The mortgagees were entitled to create 
tenancies by virtue of the mortgage deed dated 9th 
March 1942. However, there is nothing in the language 
E 
F 
of the mortgage deed to indicate that the tenancies 
created by the mortgagees would be binding on the 
mortgagors. At the highest, after redemption, and after 
possession is taken, the mortgagors will also be entitled 
G 
to receive rent in future. It will be seen that the 
mortgagors' right to get back possession is expressly 
recognised by the mortgage deed entitling tenants 
created by the mortgagees to become tenants of the 
953 
H 
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A mortgagors. The entitlement to receive rent in future can 
by no stretch be held to create a tenancy between the 
mortgagors and the tenants of the mortgagees. In the 
circumstances, the judgment of the High Court is set 
aside. All other issues are left open and can be agitated 
B before the High Court. It will be open to all parties to raise 
such pleas as are available to them in law. [para 8] [969-
D-H; 970-A-E] 
Poma/ Kanji Govindji & Ors.· v. Vraj/al Karsandas Purohit 
C & Ors. 1988(3) Suppl. SCR 826 = 1989 (1) SCC 458 - relied 
on 
All Indian Film Corpoation Ltd. & Ors. v. Sri Raja Gyan 
Nath & Ors. 1969 (3) SCC 79; Mis. Sacha/ma/ Parasam v. 
Smt. Ratnabai & Ors. 1973 (3) SCC 198; Shivdev Singh & 
D Anr. v. Sucha Singh & Anr. 2000 (2) SCR 878 =2000 (4) SCC 
326; Mahomed Muse v. Jijibhai Bhagvan (1885) 9 Born 524; 
Parmanand Pandit v. Mata Din Rai (1925) 47 All 582; Shea 
Singh v. Birbahadar Singh, (1910) 6 IC 707 (All); Aukinidu 
v. Subbiah, (1912) 35 Mad 744; Dao/a/ Rai v. Sheikh Chand, 
E (1915) 31 IC 869 (Nag); Ram Narain Pathak v. Surathnath, 
(1920) 57 IC 327 (Pat); Bhimrao v. Sakharam, AIR 1922 
Born 277; Satyavatamma v. Padmanabhan, AIR 1957 AP 30; 
Gobind Ram v. Rajphul Singh, AIR 1973 P & H 94; Maina 
Devi v. Thakur Mansingh & Ors., AIR 1986 Raj 44 - referred 
F to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1969 (3) sec 79 
referred to 
para 4 
1973 (3) sec 198 
referred to 
~ara 4 
G 
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 826 relied on 
para 5 
2000 (2) SCR 878 
referred to 
para 6 
(1885) 9 Born 524 
referred to 
para 7 
H 
(1925) 47 All 582 
referred to 
para 7 
DR. THAKAR SINGH (D) BY LRS. v. MULA SINGH (D) 955 
THR. LR. 
(1885) 9 Born 524 
referred to 
para 7 
(1925) 47 All 582 
referred to 
para 7 
(1910) 6 IC 707 (All) 
referred to 
para 7 
(1912) 35 Mad 744 
referred to 
para 7 
(1915) 31 IC 869 (Nag) 
referred to 
para 7 
(1920) 57 IC 327 (Pat) 
referred to 
para 7 
AIR 1922 Born 277 
referred to 
·para 7 
AIR 1957 AP 30 
referred to 
para 7 
AIR 1973 P & H 94 
referred to 
para 7 
AIR 1986 Raj 44 
referred to 
para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1740 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.03.2004 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 238 of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1979. 
E 
AP. Mohanty for the Appellants. 
Nagendra Rai, Abhay Kumar, Anil Kumar Jha, Debasis 
Misra, R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. In this Civil Appeal an interesting 
question arises for decision. One Nand Singh and Dr. Thakar 
Singh filed a suit for recovery for possession of various shops G 
cum vacant sites situated in the main Bazar of Moga Town 
against 14 defendants. The suit property had been mortgaged 
to one Suba Singh and Saudagar Singh, defendants 1 and 2, 
for a sum of Rs.26,000/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 
9th March 1942. After taking an additional amount of Rs.3,000/ H 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
- from the aforesaid Suba Singh and Saudagar Singh, the 
p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.