LexMRITUNJOY PANI AND ANOTHER versus NARMANDA BALA SASMAL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] to furnish security for the proper realisation of the tax levied or leviable under the Act. We agree with M 1'· Nand Lal the Chief Commissioner that there was no violation of Raj Kishan v. the principles of natural justice in the present case. Commissioner of For the reasons given above we hold that there is Sales Tax, Delhi no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed & Another with costs. S. K. Das J. I96I March z4. Petition di~missed. MRITUNJOY PANI AND ANOTHER v. NARMANDA BALA SASMAL AND ANOTHER (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Mortgage-Right of redemption-Suit, when maintainable- Mortgagor and Mortgagee-Legal position-Indian Trusts Act, r88a (II of r882), s. 90. Usufructuary mortgage bond was executed in favour of the father of the appellant who was put in possession of the mort- gaged property. One of the terms of the usufructuary mortgage was that in case of failure of payment of rent by the mortgagor, the mortgagee was to pay off the arrears of rent to the landlord, which obligation the mortgagee did not honour as a result of which the property was brought to sale and ultimately purchas- ed by the mortgagee. The mortgagor filed a suit against the mortgagee, the appel- lant's father, for redemption of the mortgage and for possession. The defence inter alia was that the mortgagee had purchased equity of redemption in execution of the rent decree and that the mortgagor had no longer any right to sue him for redemp- tion and their remedy, if any, was to sue for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud or otherwise. Held, thats. 90 of the Trusts Act read with the illustration (c) lays down the principle that no one can be allowed to benefit for his own wrongful act. Held, further, that the legal position with regard to mort- gagor and mortgagee was that:- ( I) the governing principle is that "once mortgagee ..,... ·. - • I ,, .... ,. • • • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 291 always a mortgagee" till the mortgage is terminated by the act r96r of the parties themselves, by merger or by order of the Court; (2) where a mortgagee purchases the equity of redemp- M.itunjoy Poni tion in execution of his mortgage decree with the leave of court & Another or in execution of a mortgage or money decree obtained by v. a third party, the equity of redemption may be extinguished; Narmanda Bala and, in that event, the mortgagor cannot sue for redemption SasJnal & Another without getting the sale set aside; and (3) where a mortgagee purchases the mortgaged property by reason of a default committed by him the mortgage is not extinguished and the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee continues to subsist even thereafter, for his purchase of the equity of redemption is only in trust for the mortgagor. In the instant case the right to redeem the mortgage was not extinguished and in the eyes of law, the purchase in the rent sale was deemed to have been made in trust for the mort- gagor and the suit for redemption was maintainable. Sidhakamal Nayan v. Bira Naik, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 336, relied on. Malkarjun Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. Narharl Bin Shivappa, (1900) L.R. 27 I.A. 216, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1957 . Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 3, 1955, of the Orissa High Court in Appeal No. 593 of 1950. R. Patnaik, for the appellants. D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondents. 1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave Subba Rao J. against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Orissa dated March 3, 1955, setting aside the judg- ment of the Court of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj, and restoring that of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore. The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Bhagaban Parida. On July 16, 1924, he execut- ed a registered kabala for a consideration of Rs. 2,000 in favour of one Priyanath Sasmal. On June 2, 1928, Priyanath Sasmal executed a usufructuary mort- gage bond (Ex. B) for Rs. 1,500 in favour of 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] '96' Lakshminarayan Pani, the father of the appellants Mritunjoy Pani herein. Under the terms_ of the said usufructuary & Another mortgage, the mortgaged property was put in posses- v. sion of the mortgagee. One of the terms of the mort
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.