Date of judgement:
19th April, 2022.
Bench:
JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
Parties:
Appellant –SH. DINESH SHARMA
Respondents –MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH
SUBJECT
The Court, in this case, while upholding the judgment of the Trail court, held that mere agreement of mortgage would not accrue any right until a formal deed is registered.
OVERVIEW
- In November, 2016, the respondent had agreed to rent the suit property to the appellant. The appellant was to pay a rent of Rs. 9200 along with electricity bill.
- While the appellant paid the rent regularly for the initial few months, he subsequently started unreasonably delaying the payment of rent.
- Furthermore, the appellant never paid the electricity bill and as a result, the authorities severed the electricity connection.
- The appellant, on the other hand, completely denied the existence of tenant-landlord relationship and argued that he had paid 5,00,000 to the respondent for mortgage purposes and the respondents had agreed to sell the suit premises to him for Rs. 13,00,000. However, the mortgage documents were stolen from his custody.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellants argued that Trial Court had listed the matter even though no formal application had been filed by the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Furthermore, while passing the order, the Trial Court did not consider that there were disputed facts which had not been established. Thus, the matter could not have been decided without trial.
- Furthermore, it had not been established whether the suit property was given to the appellant as security or as a mortgagee.
- The appellant had denied the existence of tenant-landlord relationship.
- Relying on the case of Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others, AIR 1958 SC 886, the appellants contended that irrespective of whether the appellant had made any admission, the Court would still require the respondents to prove the facts pleaded by them.
- The appellant contended that since he was a mortgagee, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable.
- Lastly, the appellant argued that he was in possession of all original documents and chain of title deeds. Usually, a landlord would not provide such documents to the tenant.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent contended that the appellant had dishonesty stopped the payment of rent and was relying on false mortgage documents.
- Furthermore, the respondent stated that the appellants had falsely submitted that the possession of the original documents was with the appellants
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court noted that Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision that has the purpose of ensuring speedy justice. The provision related to admission to the extent that it admits the claim of the other party.
- The admission can be oral or written and may also be constrictive.
- To consider such an admission, the Court must consider whether "whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter". Judgment based on such an admission is not a right but rather a discretion of the Court.
- The Court noted that the finding on which the Trial Court based its order was that since there were no registered documents in the favour of the appellant, his status was that of a tenant.
- The Court agreed that no formal documents or deeds were put on record to prove the mortgage. Thus, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court rightly dismissed the appeal. In the absence of any formal documents/deeds, no right can be accrued to the mortgagee on mere assumption of mortgage. Such a scenario would lead to chaos in the society.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
