PURAN CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus KIRPAL SINGH (D) AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PURAN CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
KIRPAL SINGH (D) AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 2000 
B 
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 76(a)-Mortgage-Redemption 
of-Tenant-Possession-Continuance of-Tenancy created by a mortgagee-
C Right of the mortgagees tenant" to continue in possession being co-terminus 
with his interest as mortgagee-Exception-Lease created by a mortgagee 
being binding on the mortgagor. the tenant could continue· in possession 
despite redemption-Applicability of the exception-Erstwhile prior 
mortgagees of the land wherein their father was already a tenant-Redemption 
of the prior mortgage by payment to them--Claim to remain in occupation 
D of land as tenants claiming to have inherited their fathers tenancy rights to 
the land-Tenability of-Held, they have no right to continue in possession 
of the mortgaged land after redemption of the mortgage-Being mortgagees, 
their father in effect became a tenant under them and they could not become 
their own tenants-When a landlord transfers his rights in the leased property 
E 
in his tenant, there would be a merger of the rights as owner and tenancy 
would come to an end-Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955-
Sections 8-B, 18. 
The land in question was owned by one R, predecessor-in-interest of 
the appellants. He mortgaged the land with possession to respondent no. 3 
F 
who sold his interest in the land to L. L. inducted B, the father of respondents 
I and 2, as a tenant in respect of the said land. After the death of L, his son 
sold his rights as a mortgagee which he had inherited, to respondents I and 
2 by two separate deeds Respondents I and 2, therefore, became the mortgagees 
of the entirety of the disputed land. Subsequently, B died and respondents I . 
G and 2, as his sons, claimed to have inherited his tenancy rights to the land. 
In the meanwhile R, died leaving behind him his widow, respondent No. 
6 and four daughters, appellants 2 to 4 and respondent No. 5. R had executed 
a will in favour of his four daughters by which he bequeathed the land to them. 
All four daughters executed a second mortgage with possession of the land 
H in favour of appellant No. I. 
756 
-
PURAN CHAND v. KIRPAL SINGH 
757 
Subsequently, the four appellants filed a suit for redemption of the prior A 
mortgage against respondents I and 2. The suit was decreed in favour of 
11ppellant No. I and he was given the right to redeem the first mortgage and 
obtain possession of the land upon payment of specified amount. Appeal 
preferred by respondents I and 2 was dismissed whereafter a second appeal 
was preferred before the High Court. 
During pendency of the second appeal, mortgage of appellant No. I was 
wholly redeemed by appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and they resumed full ownership of 
the land. During this time, the fourth daughter of R, respondent No. S, sold 
B 
her share of the equity of redemption in the land in favour of respondents I 
and 2 by two separate deeds. Respondents I and 2, thus, filed an application C 
before the Collector, claiming redemption against appellant No. I in respect 
of I/4th of the land sold to them by respondent No. S. The Collector dismissed 
the application. The respondents then filed two applications in the pending 
second appeal before the High Court; the first application was to bring on 
.' 
record the fact of the purchase of one-fourth share of the land from respondent 
No. Sand the second for being allowed to redeem the mortgage of appellant D 
No. I in respect of such one-fourth interest. The second appeal filed by 
respondents I and 2 was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that they inherited the 
tenancy right of their father on the basis of Sections 88 and 18 of the Pepsu 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and thus claimed their continuance E 
in occupation as tenants despite redemption of the mortgage. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Respondents I and 2 had and have no right to continue in 
possession of the mortgaged land after redemption of the mortgage except to F 
the extent of their purchase of respondent No S's share. Section 8-8 of the 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 is for the benefit of a tenant 
to whom the subject matter of the tenancy may be subsequently mortgaged. It 
cannot apply in this case because there is no subsisting tenancy. In upholding 
the right of respondents I and 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.