The Supreme Court observed that once the Usufructuary mortgage was made, the mortgage had the right to make up for a mortgage at a time.
In this case, because the mortgage is not redeemed by the mortgage within 30 years, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the declaration that he had become its owner after the blackout of the hypotek rights and for permanent orders. The lawsuit was determined by a court confirmed by the first appeal court. In the second appeal, the lawsuit was dismissed by the High Court who relied on the decision on Sampuran Singh vs. Niranjan Kaur (1999).
When rejecting the special leave petition proposed by the Plaintiff, a bench consisting of judges Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed:
"After the verdict was given by a single judge, a full bench from the Punjab High Court and Haryana in 'Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.' It was reported and argued that once the Usufructuary hypotek was created, the hypotek had the right to make up for a hypotek at a point of time based on the principle that once a mortgage was always a mortgage. Such decisions were confirmed by this court in 'Singh Ram (dead) through legal representatives vs Sheo Ram & ORS. "Reported."
Section 58 (d) From the transfer of property Act defines the Usufructuary hypotek as follows: where the mortgage provides ownership or explicitly or with the implications of binding itself to provide property ownership that is mortgaged to the mortgage, and allow it , and to receive rent and profits obtained from the property or part of the lease and profit and in accordance with the same thing] as a substitute for interest, or as a mortgage payment, or partly as a substitute for interest or part in a mortgage payment, this transaction called the Usufructuary hypotek and hypotek hypotek hypotek.
In Singh Ram (Supra), the Supreme Court has made the following observations about the Usufructuary Hypotek:
"… While in other hypotek cases, the right to make up for S.60, in the case of the Usufructuary hypotek, the right to restore ownership is handled under S.62 and starts on the payment of the hypotek money from Usufructs or part of the Usufructs and part of the payment in payment or deposit by the mortgage. Differences in the Usufructuary and other hypotek hypotek are clearly borne by the provisions S.58, S.60 and S.62 from TP ACT which are read with ART.61 From the schedule for the Lord Limitation. Usufructuary Mortgage cannot be treated equivalent with other hypotes, because it will defeat the S.62 scheme from TP ACT and Equity. This right from this Usufructuary mortgagor is not just a fair right, it has legal recognition based on S.62 from TP ACT. There is no legal principle that can defeated by this right .62 from TP ACT, must be considered wrong S for this reason or must be limited to the mortgage besides the Usufructuary mortgage. Thus, we uphold the view n which is taken by a full bench that in the case of the Usufructuary mortgage, only the end of the 30 -year period from the date of the creation of the mortgage does not extinguish the hypotek rights below S.62 from TP ACT TP ".
Last year, in Ram Dattan (dead) by LRS versus Devi Ram, the Supreme Court had followed this decision to state that there was no period of restrictions in the case of the Usufructuary mortgage.
Case details
Harminder Singh (D) vs Surjit Kaur (D)
Doad: Judge Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian
Advisor: Aor Geetanjali Mohan
Headnotes
Transfer of Property Law, 1882; Section 62 - Usufructuary Mortgage - After the Usufructuary mortgage is made, the hypotek has the right to make up for a mortgage at every point of time based on the principle that once a mortgage is always a mortgage. [Referred to Singh Ram (Death) through Legal Representative Vs. Sheo Ram & ORS. Once the Usufructuary mortgage was made, mortgage had the right to make up for a mortgage at a time: SC. Find the Best DRT & DRAT Attorneys in Chennai
Other Legal Information: In The Absence of DRATs Authorities Parties Can Move to High Court
