THAKUR SINGH versus RAM BARAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 25-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1016 
TilAKUR SINGH 
v. 
RAM BARAN SINGH & ORS. 
August 25, 1972 
[A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Transfer uj Properly Act (4 of 1882), ss. 76, 77 and .83-Mortgage 
providing for payn~ent of govcrnrnent revenue and Ceso· by .1nortgagor_:._ 
Mortgagee in possesjion paying the siune-Deposit of 1nortgage n1oney by 
111ortgcgor-lf should include payn1e11t by- n1ortgagee-Mortgagee's liabi-
lity to accounl. 
'fhe appcllant-mortgag.or tcndi.::rcd to the mortgagees 
the 
n1ortgagc 
money due on thcir""mortgages ~ind, on the refusal of the mortgagees to 
accept thl! an1ount, Jcpositcd the n1ortgagt! money into court. 
The appel-
lant thereafter filed suits for redemption and me1me profits. The terms 
of the mortgage deeds indicated that, (i) the mortgagee shall have 
the 
possession and occupation of the n1ortgagcd property and the right 
to 
appropriate the produce thereof in lieu of interest on the· mortgage n1oney 
and th.it the mortgagor shall have no claim to any excess produce or 
mesne profits; (ii) the mortgagee was to pay to the mortaaaor the amount 
mentioned in each mortgage bo•1d as annual reserve rent; and (iii) the 
mortgagor \I/as liable for the payh1cnt of governn1ent revenue or cess. The 
mortgagees, ho\vever, paid the revenue and cess on behal'f of the rnort· 
gagor. 
The total amou11.t of revenue and cess paid by the mortgagees 
each year exceeded the amount Jue to the mortgagor as reserve rent. The 
trial court, and the High Court in arpeal, held that the amounts represent-
ing the government revenue and 
c~ss sho11ld have been added to 
the 
mortgage money and deposited in court, and, since it was not done, there 
was no valid deposit in court of the money due on the !UOrtgages. and 
hence, the appellant was not entitled to mesne profilll. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: ( 1) Under the provisinns o.f the Cess Act, 188v, ce;s is a 
public demand and linked with rent. 
Under the terms of the mortgage 
deed the appellant was liable for the payment of both revenue and cess. 
A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
Since the mortgagees paid the government revenue or cess on behalf of 
F 
the appellant and the amount so paid exceeded the amount payable by the 
mortgagees as reserve rent, the mortgagees \Vere entitled to the exce:;s 
payment from the appellant an<l add it to the n1ortgage money due. 
[IOWE-F-HI 
(2) There \Vas nothing to account on the part of the mortgagees. hc-
cause, (a) the mortgagees had to pay to the mortgagor a fixed an1ount as 
reserve rent; and (b) the mortgages were covered by s. 77 of the Transfer 
G 
of Property- Act and therefore the provisions as to accounts in s. 76(gl. 
are excluded. [1020B-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1038-
1040 of 1967. 
Appeals by certificate under Article 133 of ·the Constitution 
of India from the judgment and decree dated AuJ?uSt 7, 1962 
of the Pain.a High Court in OriJ?inal D~crees Nos. 384/52. 1155 
and 2155. 
H 
' ,. 
~ 
I 
 
A 
THAKUR SINGH V. RAM Jl"ARAN (Ray, J.) 
!017 
U. C. Prasad, for the appellant 
Jagadish Swamp, K. K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha and B. B. Sinha, 
for responden:ts Nos. 1-4 (in C.A. No. 1038 of 1967), for res-
pondents 1 (a) & 2 (in C.A. No. 1039 of 1967 and for respon-
dents Nos. I, 2, 4 & 5 (in C.A. No. 1040 of 1967). 
B 
The Judgment of the Court '.Vas delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
Ray, J. 
These three appeals are by certificate against the 
judgment dated 7 August, 1962 d' the High Court at Patna. The 
High Court allowed in part the appeals filed by the appellant by 
decreeing in part the suits filed by the aopellant for redemption 
of mortgages. 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's prayer 
for mesnc profits. 
The appellant filed three suits for redemption. 
Title Suit No. 
54 of 1950 filed by the appellant was with respect to I jara bond 
da1ed 21 April, 1920 in favour of Ram Baran Singh for 
Rs. 
2,300/-. 
Title Suit No. 55 of 1950 was filed by the [ppellant 
with respect to another ljara bond dated 21 April, 
1920 in 
favour of Inder Singh for Rs. 1293-12.Q. 
The third Title Suit 
No, 56 of 1950 was filed by the appellant with respect to the 1hird 
ljara bond dated 21 April, 1920 in favour of Raj Kum:ar Mahto 
for Rs. 1,150/-. 
The bond was subsequently assigned to one 
Sheo Sharan Singh whose sons were defendants in that suit. These 
bonds were executed by Maik Nizammuddin. 
These three bonds 
were mortgage bonds in respect of certain Mill\iyat share in vilLa!!e 
Keoran Mauzume Makhdumpur in the District of Patna. 

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