PRABHAKARAN AND ORS. versus M. AZHAGIRIPILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 20-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PRABHAKARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
M. AZHAGIRIPILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 2006 
" 
[ARIJl'tPASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
'i 
Limitation Act 1963-Sections, 18, 19, 27 and Article 6/(a)-
Acknowledgement-Fresh Period of Limitation-Usufructuary Mortgage-
Redemption of-Mor/gage of suit property under a usufructuary mortgage 
C deed dt. 7.9.1935-Mortgagee assigning the mortgage in favour of assignee 
under registered deed dt. 12.2.1954 and delivering possession of suit property 
to him-Heirs of mortgagor filing suit against heirs of assignee for redemption 
of mortgage on 16.11.1981-Defendants laking plea of /imitation-Plaintiffs 
contending that in view of assignment dt. 12.2.1954 being an acknowledgement 
the mortgage and right of redemption are subsisting-Allowing the appeal 
D against the dismissal of the suit, held that the operative portion of the assignment 
deed amounts to admission of subsistence of the mortgage and of the Jura/ 
relationship between the mortgagee and mortgagor operating as an 
acknowledgement of liability-A fresh period of limitation starts from 12.2.1954 
and the suit filed in 1981 is within limitation. 
E 
limitation Act 1963-Article 61 (a)-Transfer of Property Act-Sections 
58(d) and 60---Right to Redeem, Accrual of-Period of Limitation-Period of 
/imitation begins to run when the right to redeem accrues-Jn usufructuary 
mortgages, which does no/ fvc any date for repayment of the morlgaffe money, 
but merely stipulates that the mortgagee is entitled to possession till redemption, 
the right to redeem accrues immediately on execution of the mortgage deed 
F and a suit for redemption has to be filed within 30 years from the date of 
mortgage. 
limitation Act 1963-Section 18--Acknowledgement-Who can make-
Transjer of Property Act 1882-Sections 60 and 67--Usufructuary Mortgage-
words used in the acknowledgement must indicate existence ofjural relationship 
G between the parties-Mortgagor and mortgagee both have rights as well as 
obligations against each other-An acknowledgement can be made by a 
mortgagee which will extend the limitation for a suit against mortgagee in 
respect of property or right claimed against him. 
H 
limitation Act 1963--Sections 18, 19-Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act -
28 
--
' 
PRABHAKARAN v. M. AZHAGJRIPILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
29 
1979-Section 9-Usufructuary Mortgage-Discharge of-Mortgagor's suit A 
for redemption-Computation of Period of Limitation-Mortgagee made 
acknowledgement of the mortgage in 1954-Held, afresh period of limitation 
started from 1954-The mortgage was subsisting when the Debt Relief Act 
came into force in 1978 and as he mortgagee and his assignees were in 
possession of the mortgaged property for more than I 0 years: the mortgage B 
debt stood wholly discharged. 
-~ 
Transfer of Property Act 1882-Sections 58(d) and 60-Usufructuary 
mortgage-Nature of mortgage and rights of mortgagor and mortgagee 
discussed. 
Transfer of Property Act-Mortgages-Code of Civil Procedure 1908- C · 
Ordy ~4 Rules, 7, 8, BA, 9, IO and JOA-Mortgagor's right to claim account 
of income/profit from the mortgaged property-Held, in case of usufructuary 
mortg~ge where mortgage debt gets statutorily discharged mortgagor cannot 
clairri rendition of accounts. 
Ancestor of Appellants-Plaintiffs mortgaged his property under a D 
usufructuary mortgage deed dt. 7.9.1935. Mortgagee assigned the 
mortgage under a registered deed dt 12.2.1954 and delivered possession 
of suit property to S. Iyenger of whom defendants 1 and 2 were legal heirs. 
Appellants issued notice to the defendants 1 and 2 for redemption of . 
mortgage. Defendants 1 and 2 replied that the property was in possession E 
of defendant No. 3. On defendants' refusal to comply, Appellants filed a 
suit on 16.11.1981 claiming redemption of mortgage and account of 
income. They contended that in view of assignment dt 12.2.1954 being an 
acknowledgment, the mortgage and right of redemption were subsisting 
and mortgage debt stood discharged by section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Debt 
Relief Act 1979. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that mortgage F 
of 1935 was not subsisting on the date of ~uit, right of redemption was 
barred by limitation and defendant No. 3 had perfected bis title by adverse 
possession. First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of plaintiff holding 
that in view of acknowledgement contained in the assignment deed, the 
mortgage was subsisting and tlie suit was not barred by limitation and G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.