Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R., Sikri, S.M.
Facts:
In a suit for redemption of a mortgage filed by the respondents' predecessors on a mortgage executed by them in favour of the appellants' predecessors, a decree was passed directing the respondents' predecessors to pay a certain sum within a specified time to the appellant's predecessors and recover possession of the mortgage property and incase of failure to pay within the specific time they shall be deemed to have lost the right of redemption for all time.
According to the respondents the money was not paid, even so, the relationship between the parties continued to be that of the mortgagors and mortgagees. So the respondents filed an application-under the Bombay Agriculturists Debtors Relief Act for justice of the debt., The appellants also filed an application for adjustment of the debt due under the decree; but in doing so, they made it clear that they were making the application as a matter of precaution and without prejudice to their contentions that the equity of redemption had been extinguished and the parties no longer stood in the relationship of creditors and debtors. The trial court rejected the appellants' contention that the mortgage had been extinguished and held that the equity of redemption still vested in the respondents; but as the respondents' application was barred by time, it dismissed the respondents' application. On appeal, the District Court held, inter alia, that the decree was a composite decree and on the respondents' failure to pay the decrement amount within the time specified, their right to redeem the mortgage was extinguished by virtue of the express terms contained in it, and dismissed the respondents' appeal. On revision under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court construed the decree as a preliminary decree and found that the clause purporting to extinguish the equity of redemption did not affect its essential character as a preliminary decree and did not in law out an end to the relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that in reversing the conclusion of the District Court, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 115 of the Code.
Issue:
Whether while exercising jurisdiction under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court correct errors of fact
Contentions raised by the Appellants:
The appellants contend that the High court exceeded its jurisdiction under S.115 of the code while reversing the conclusion of the District Court.
Judgement:
While exercising its jurisdiction under s. 115 it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however, gross they may be, or even errors oflaw, unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try the dispute itself.
Join Mr. Virmani for his 24-Hours Live Course on CPC starting from 23rd August.
Flat 66 % discount till 18th August.
Use the following link to join the class - https://lnkd.in/d-CM4uE
Study material and recordings shall be given to all the participants along with the certificates
