The Right Of Recovery Of Mortgaged Equity Is Subsidiary To The Right Of Proprietorship

CASE BACKGROUND

• The plaintiff has filed a plea against a judgement of the High Court ofBombay dated January21, 2015, in which the petition for redemption of mortgage land was rejected, with the Appellate Court's verdict being set aside and the Trial Court's judgement being restored.
• The landowners of Village Veni, Taluka Lonar, were the defendants (No.1 and No.2). To obtain a payment of Rs.700/-, the defendants mortgaged the land in favour of the other defendant (No.3). The owners then sold the mortgaged land to the plaintiff via a recorded sale deed for the sum of Rs.1000/-. As a result of the selling transaction, the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor.
• The original mortgagee (defendant No. 3) filed a Regular Civil Suit for the recovery of the original mortgagors' mortgage sum of Rs.700/- plus interest (defendant Nos. 1 and 2).

CASE PROCEDINGS

• In this case, the mortgagee filed a lawsuit against the mortgagors to recover the mortgage amount. The judgement in this case foreclosed the mortgagors' right to redeem the property. Following that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the original mortgagors and the mortgagee, requesting that the mortgaged property be redeemed.
• Claiming that the mortgagors had sold to him the mortgaged land, he had stepped into their shoes in the sale transaction.
• The complaint was dismissed by the Trial Court, but theAppellate Court concluded that, under Sections 59A and 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee should have made the plaintiff a party because he purchased the land before the suit was filed. The Appellate Court's decision was overturned by the High Court.

CASE RELEVANCE

• The Apex Court specified that the right of redemption in equity is a subordinate right to the right of ownership.
• The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna noticed and observed that any owner who has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor after purchasing the property from the mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, even though the expression equity of redemption is a suitable maxim.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?