REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4726 OF 2021

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 13575 OF 2015)

NARAYAN DEORAO JAVLE (DECEASED)

THROUGH LRS. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KRISHNA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment of the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 21.1.2015 whereby the

suit for redemption of mortgage land was dismissed, setting aside

the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring that of the

Trial Court.

2.Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that defendant Nos. 1

and 2 were owners of the land comprising in Survey Nos. 67/3 and

65/1 in Village Veni, Taluka Lonar. The said defendants mortgaged

the land in favour of defendant No. 3 on 30.4.1954 (Ex.81) to

secure a sum of Rs.700/-. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the

mortgaged land comprising in Survey No. 67/3 admeasuring 1 acre

1

32 gunthas to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed for

consideration of Rs.1000/-. Thus, the plaintiff stepped in the shoes

of the mortgagor on account of the sale transaction.

3.The original mortgagee (defendant No. 3) filed a Regular Civil Suit

No. 237 of 1965 for recovery of mortgage amount of Rs.700/- along

with the interest accrued against the original mortgagors

(defendant Nos. 1 and 2). The plaintiff was not impleaded as a

party in the said suit, though the sale in his favour was before the

filing of the suit. A preliminary decree was drawn based on a

compromise whereby the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to pay

the mortgage amount on or before 27.3.1967. Since defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 failed to pay the said amount, the preliminary decree

was converted into a final decree on 4.6.1969 which led to

foreclosing the rights of the mortgagor to redeem the property. In

execution of such decree, the mortgagee had taken possession

from the plaintiff, the present appellant on 5.12.1980. It is

thereafter the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1984 against

the original mortgagors and the mortgagee seeking redemption of

the mortgaged property.

4.The Trial Court though dismissed the suit but returned a finding

that the suit is within the period of limitation as the statutory

period of redemption is of 30 years. The suit was filed on

23.1.1984 though the period of 30 years was to expire on

30.4.1984. It was also held that the plaintiff has purchased the

2

property and not the equity of redemption. It was also held that

the plaintiff filed an application before the Executing Court for a

stay on the execution of the decree. However, such an order

(Ex.124) will not operate as res judicata as the application was only

to stay the execution and the appeal against the said order was

dismissed (Ex.90). In respect of Issue No. 7(A), the Court held that

the partial redemption is permissible in view of the judgment of the

High Court reported as Bank of Poona v. Navrajasthan

Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

1

, since the plaintiff has not

purchased the equity of redemption, therefore, the plaintiff is not

entitled to redeem part of the property though plaintiff was ready

to pay the entire mortgage amount. Since the right of redemption

and the right of foreclosure are coextensive, therefore, no sooner

than a decree for foreclosure is passed, the right to redeem

extinguishes.

5.In appeal, the First Appellate Court held that the revenue record

shows that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land after the

sale deed was executed in his favour on 18.5.1964. The plaintiff is

an attesting witness to the mortgage deed (Ex.81) but that will

only lead to an inference that the title of the plaintiff is subject to

the rights of defendant No.3 as mortgagee in respect of land

purchased by him. He is, thus, a mortgagor within the meaning of

Section 59A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

2

. Therefore, in

terms of Section 60 of the Act, he had a right to redeem the

1 AIR 1968 BOM 106

2 For short, the ‘Act’

3

property provided it is not extinguished by the act of the parties or

by decree of the Court. Examining as to whether the decree of

foreclosure has extinguished the right of redemption available to

the plaintiff, for that reliance was placed upon the judgment of the

learned High Court in Bank of Pune wherein, the purchaser

instituted a suit for redemption which was decreed. The first

appellate court relied upon Banamali Tripathy v. Biswanath

Pattanaik

3

. It was further held that since the plaintiff has

purchased the land before the institution of the suit, therefore, the

mortgagee ought to have made him a party in view of the

provisions of Sections 59A and 91 of the Act. Therefore, the decree

of foreclosure was set aside by the High Court.

6.The High Court held that the suit of the plaintiff for redemption was

not maintainable. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit filed

by the mortgagee for foreclosure based on a compromise in which

the original mortgagors were required to pay the amount by

27.3.1967. Since the amount was not paid, the final decree was

drawn up on 4.11.1969. Such decree was not challenged and

became final. Thus, Plaintiff cannot seek redemption of the

mortgage.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Sections 59A, 60 and

91 of the Act to contend that the plaintiff was required to be

impleaded as a party in the suit for foreclosure as also the

provisions of Order XXXIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

3 AIR 1984 Orissa 145

4

1908

4

. Such provisions read as under:

“59-A. References to mortgagors and mortgagees to

include persons deriving title from them . —Unless

otherwise expressly provided, references in this Chapter to

mortgagors and mortgagees shall be deemed to include

references to persons deriving title from them respectively.

60. Right of mortgagor to redeem .-At any time after the

principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right,

on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the

mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to

the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents

relating to the mortgaged property which are in the

possession or power of the mortgagee, ( b) where the

mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to

deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the

cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged

property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or

to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a

registered instrument) to have registered an

acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of

his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been

extinguished:

Provided that the right conferred by this section has not

been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a

Court.

The right conferred by this section is called a right to

redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for

redemption.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any

provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of

the principal money has been allowed to pass or no such

time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to

reasonable notice before payment or tender of such money.

Redemption of portion of mortgaged property . —

Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a

share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own

share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the

amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where

a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all

such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part,

the share of a mortgagor.

4 For short, ‘the Code’.

5

xx xx xx

91. Persons who may sue for redemption. —Besides

the mortgagor, any of the following persons may redeem, or

institute a suit for redemption of, the mortgaged property,

namely—

(a) any person (other than the mortgagee of the interest

sought to be redeemed) who has any interest in, or charge

upon, the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to

redeem the same;

(b) any surety for the payment of the mortgage-debt or any

part thereof; or

(c) any creditor of the mortgagor who has in a suit for the

administration of his estate obtained a decree for sale of the

mortgaged property.”

Order XXXIV, Rule 1-

Parties to suits for foreclosure sale and redemption.

- Subject to the provisions of this Code, all persons having

an interest either in the mortgage-security or in the right of

redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to

the mortgage.

Explanation. -A puisne mortgagee may sue for foreclosure

or for sale without making the prior mortgagee a party to

the suit; and a prior mortgage need not be joined in a suit

to redeem a subsequent mortgage

8. It is argued that the extinguishment of the right of redemption

contemplated by Section 60 of the Act is by decree of the Court.

Such decree means a valid decree and not a decree passed against

the mortgagor who has lost the title in the part of the suit property

after suit land was conveyed to the appellant on 18.5.1964. It is

also argued that the plaintiff was in possession, which is apparent

from the revenue record and the fact that the possession was

taken from the plaintiff in the execution of the decree for

6

foreclosure. Since the plaintiff was in possession on the strength of

the sale executed in his favour before filing suit for foreclosure, the

plaintiff was not only a proper but a necessary party as the

impleaded defendant had lost the title in the suit property on the

date of filing of the suit.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon

an order passed by this Court in a judgment reported as Allokam

Peddabbayya & Anr. v. Allahabad Bank & Ors.

5

, to contend

that a purchaser from a mortgagor has no better right than the

mortgagor himself. It is argued that the mortgagee was not served

with a notice of transfer of purchase on 18.5.1964, therefore, the

mortgagee could not implead the subsequent purchaser in the suit

for foreclosure. The reliance is placed upon the following paras of

the judgment, which read as under:

“9. The right to enforce a claim for equity of redemption is a

statutory right under the Act. It necessarily presupposes the

existence of a mortgage. The right to redeem can stand

extinguished either by the act of the parties or by operation

of the law in the form of a decree of the court under the

proviso to Section 60 of the Act. The appellants being

purchasers of the equity of redemption can have or claim no

better rights under Section 91, than what their predecessor-

in-interest had under Section 60 of the Act.

xx xx xx

13. The decree for foreclosure in OS No. 68 of 1987, and the

subsequent auction-sale followed by issuance of sale

certificate, extinguished the right to redemption by reason

of the proviso to Section 60. The plaintiffs having interest in

the mortgaged property through their predecessor-in-

interest and in the right to redeem the same were

5 (2017) 8 SCC 272

7

competent to do so under Section 91 of the Act, but subject

to the limitation under the proviso to Section 60. Their rights

could not be any superior or separate from that of their

predecessor-in-interest. If the right to redeem stood

extinguished by operation of the law under the proviso to

Section 60 of the Act prior to the period of limitation, it

cannot be contended that the right could nonetheless be

enforced any time before the expiry of limitation of 30 years.

If there remained no subsisting mortgage, it is difficult to

fathom what was to be redeemed.”

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The issues arising in

the present appeal are examined hereinafter.

(i) Whether the plaintiff was a necessary party in a suit for foreclosure

filed by the mortgagee after the purchase?

11.The plaintiff has purchased property vide registered sale deed on

18.5.1964, much before the filing of the suit for foreclosure in the

year 1965. The possession of the plaintiff was recorded in the

revenue record after the purchase of the property, but still, the

mortgagee chose not to implead the subsequent purchaser. The

original mortgagor who has mortgaged the property had no

subsisting title, interest or right in the property conveyed, therefore,

the factum of compromise between the mortgagor and the

mortgagee is ineffective and not enforceable against the purchaser

i.e., the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff has purchased property, the

equity of redemption is part of the title and as an owner, he could

seek redemption of the suit land.

12.The learned counsel for the mortgagee could not point out any

provision of law that can prove that the subsequent purchaser has

8

to give notice to the mortgagee signifying purchase of the property,

by a mortgagor. The factum of purchase coupled with the delivery of

possession completes the title of the plaintiff over the land in

question. Therefore, the decree obtained in such a suit is void.

13.The plaintiff rightly claimed that he was required to be impleaded,

as he was a necessary party in a suit for foreclosure filed by the

mortgagee after the purchase of part of the mortgaged land. The

appellant also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported

as Dr. Govinddas & Anr. v. Shrimati Shantibai & Ors.

6

, to

contend that the mortgagee, the original mortgagor and the

appellant are residents of the same village. Therefore, the factum of

sale is deemed to be in the notice of the mortgagee in addition to

the delivery of possession by the mortgagors supported by the

revenue record and also the fact that the possession was taken

from the appellant. Therefore, non-impleadment of the appellant

renders the decree for foreclosure as non-est and void. It is also

argued that it was a case of a simple mortgage without delivery of

possession. The possession was taken from the appellant

consequent to the decree of foreclosure granted in favour of the

mortgagee. The findings recorded by the Trial Court that the

plaintiff has purchased the property and not equity of redemption is

clearly without any basis. In view of the fact that the possession

was delivered and the fact that the parties are residents of the

same village, there is ‘constructive notice’ of purchase of land by

6 (1973) 3 SCC 418

9

the appellant.

14.In Allokam Peddabbayya, the purchaser filed a suit for injunction.

The suit was dismissed. The appeal against the judgment and

decree of the trial court was also dismissed. It is thereafter, a suit

for redemption of mortgage was filed impleading the bank as the

defendant. The sale certificate was issued to the purchaser on

2.7.1997 after filing of the suit for injunction and after the

objections of the plaintiff in execution were dismissed, so is the

appeal against an order of dismissal of objections was dismissed. It

was in these circumstances, this Court held as under:

“12. The sale certificate was issued to Defendant 2 on 2-7-

1997 followed by delivery of possession in Execution Petition

No. 203 of 1997. The objection of the plaintiffs in Execution

Appeal No. 996 of 1997 was also rejected. Only thereafter

the plaintiffs instituted OS No. 96 of 1999 for redemption of

the mortgage under Order 34 Rule 1 CPC contending that

they were willing to deposit the mortgage dues and that the

decree in OS No. 68 of 1987 was not binding on them

because they had not been impleaded as party in the same.

In cross-examination, the plaintiffs acknowledged having

been informed by their lawyer at the time of purchase, of

the mortgage created by deposit of title deeds, by

Defendants 3 and 4.

xx xx xx

14. No challenge was laid out in OS No. 96 of 1999, either

to the auction-sale or to set aside the sale certificate issued

to Defendant 2. The reliance upon Order 34 Rule 1 CPC is

completely misconceived as under Rule 8 the right to

redemption survived only till confirmation of the sale and

not thereafter. The suit was instituted only after issuance of

the sale certificate and the question for redemption had

become irrelevant.”

In view of the said fact, the judgment referred to by the

learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of

10

the present case.

15.Still further, in terms of Section 91 of the Act, the plaintiff having

stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor in respect of land

purchased by him has a right to redeem the land mortgaged. In

addition, the Order XXXIV Rule 1 of the Code provides that all

persons having an interest either in the mortgage-security or in the

right of redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to

the mortgage including suit for foreclosure. The original

mortgagors i.e., defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the plaintiff’s right

to redeem the property though admitting they have borrowed

Rs.1,000/- from the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was

put in possession of the suit property for ten years and, therefore,

plaintiff was required to resell the property to defendant Nos. 1 and

2. But the said defendant has not supported such plea in evidence.

The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into compromise with the

mortgagee to pay the mortgage amount. The said mortgage

amount was not paid which led to passing of the final decree.

Thus, it is a case of collusion between the original mortgagors and

the mortgagee so as to defeat the right of the plaintiff.

16.The Equity of redemption means a right to redeem the property

based upon equitable principles. This Court in a judgment reported

as Shivdev Singh & Anr. v. Sucha Singh & Anr.

7

, held that the

right of redemption recognised under the Act is a statutory and

legal right which cannot be extinguished. This Court held as under:

7 (2000) 4 SCC 326

11

“8. …The right of redemption recognised under the Transfer

of Property Act is thus a statutory and legal right which

cannot be extinguished by any agreement made at the time

of mortgage as part of the mortgage transaction.”

17.In Achaldas Durgaji Oswal (Dead) through LRs v. Ramvilas

Gangabisan Heda (Dead) through LRs & Ors.

8

, this Court held

that the right of redemption is statutorily recognised right provided

under Section 60 of the Act and after the judgment of Privy Council

in Thumbasawmy Mudelly v. Mohd. Hossain Rowthen

9

, called

upon the legislature to make suitable amendments, this Court held

as under:

“11. The doctrine of redemption of mortgaged property was

not recognised by the Indian Courts as the essence of the

doctrine of equity of redemption was unknown to the

ancient law of India. The Privy Council in Thumbuswami v.

Hossain, (2 IA 241 : ILR (1875) 1 Mad 1) called upon the

legislature to make a suitable amendment which was given

a statutory recognition by reason of Section 60 of the

Transfer of Property Act…”

18.In a recent judgment of this Court reported as Jamila Begum

(Dead) though Legal Representatives v. Shami Mohd.

(Dead) through Legal Representatives & Anr.

10

, it was held

that by virtue of purchase of the property, the purchaser has

purchased the entire equity of redemption. This Court held as

under:

“Whether decree for redemption of mortgage is

correct?

32. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides

that at any time after the money becomes due, the

8 (2003) 3 SCC 614

9 ILR (1875) 1 Mad 1

10 (2019) 2 SCC 727

12

mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper

time and place, of the mortgage-money to require the

mortgagee to deliver the mortgage deed and all documents

relating to the mortgaged property, and where the

mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to

deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor. In Shivdev

Singh v. Sucha Singh [Shivdev Singh v. Sucha Singh, (2000)

4 SCC 326] , it was held as under: (SCC p. 330, para 8)

“8. … The right of redemption recognised under the

Transfer of Property Act is thus a statutory and legal

right which cannot be extinguished by any

agreement made at the time of mortgage as part of

the mortgage transaction.”

19.The equity of redemption is a right which is subsidiary to the right

of ownership. Such right is not over and above the right of

ownership purchased by the plaintiff. The expression equity of

redemption is a convenient maxim but an owner, who has stepped

into the shoes of the mortgagor, after the purchase from the

mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to

redeem the property in terms of Section 60 of the Act.

The second issue which needs to be addressed is,

(ii) Whether the decree obtained in a suit for foreclosure operates as

res judicata and the right of redemption stands extinguished by

the decree of the Court?

20.The High Court has held that the decree for foreclosure will operate

as res judicata on account of the fact that the appellant filed an

application for stay of the execution proceedings. The Executing

Court has dismissed such an application. Such dismissal of the

application in execution proceedings would operate as res judicata.

It was also held that the appellant has lost right of redemption

which is coextensive with the right of foreclosure.

13

21.An application for stay of execution does not have any trapping of a

decree as is contained in Order XXI Rules 101 & 103 of the Code.

The said provision reads as under:

“101. Question to be determined.-All questions (including

questions relating to right, title or interest in the property)

arising between the parties to a proceeding on an

application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives,

and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be

determined by the Court dealing with the application, and

not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall,

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any

other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have

jurisdiction to decide such questions.

xx xx xx

103. Orders to be treated as decrees. – Where any

application has been adjudicated upon under rule 98 or rule

100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and

be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or

otherwise as if it were a decree.”

22.The only effect of filing of an application for stay of the execution

would be that the appellant can be said to be aware of the fact that

there is a decree for foreclosure passed against him which has not

been stayed by virtue of the order of the Court. There is no

determination of the claim as is contemplated in terms of Order XXI

Rule 97 or Rule 99 of the Code having force of decree. The

declining of stay of execution will not operate as res judicata only

because Section 11 Explanation VII of the Code is applicable to the

execution as well.

23.Therefore, the findings recorded by the High Court that the

appellant is bound by the decree passed in the suit for foreclosure

14

is not tenable inter alia because the appellant was not impleaded

as a party, though mandated under Section 91 of the Act and Order

XXXIV Rule 1 of the Code. The mortgagee was aware of the

transaction of purchase in view of the judgment of this Court in Dr.

Govinddas as well as for the reason that the possession of the

appellant was recorded in the revenue record. The subsequent

conduct of mortgagee who has taken possession from the appellant

also corroborates the fact that the mortgagee was aware of the

factum of sale and possession of the appellant but still have chosen

not to implead him as a necessary party. Still further, it is apparent

from the pleadings itself that the original mortgagor had colluded

with the mortgagee. Therefore, the right conferred by Section 60 of

the Act does not stand extinguished by decree of the Court which is

to be binding and had to be passed in the presence of the

necessary parties and should not be collusive.

24.The High Court has referred to the judgment reported as

Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag

11

, to

non-suit the appellant. However, in the aforesaid judgment, the

mortgagor was non-suited on the ground that he was a purchaser

pending lis. In the said case, one Hazra was a purchaser from the

original mortgagor but he failed to make payment of the mortgage

amount. The mortgagee-initiated proceedings for foreclosure on

17.7.1945 in which a preliminary decree was passed on

23.12.1946. The respondent purchased part of the equity of

11 AIR 1967 SC 1440

15

redemption from his judgment-debtor, Hazra, after the preliminary

decree was passed. The Court found that the decree was not in the

form of a foreclosure decree but of a mortgage decree for sale. The

final decree was passed after notice to the mortgagors and the said

Hazra. It was held as under:

“16. … Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act provides

that besides the mortgagor any person other than the

mortgagee who has any interest in or charge upon the

property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the

same may redeem or institute a suit for redemption of such

mortgaged property. An execution purchaser therefore of the

whole or part of the equity of redemption has the right to

redeem the mortgaged property. Such a right is based on

the principle that he steps in the shoes of his predecessor-in-

title and has therefore the same rights which his

predecessor-in-title had before the purchase. Under Section

59-A of the Act also all persons who derive title from the

mortgagor are included in the term “mortgagor” and

therefore entitled to redeem………………………… It follows

that the respondent having purchased from the said Hazra

while the appeal by the said Hazra against the said

preliminary decree was pending in the High Court, the

doctrine of lis pendens must apply to his purchase and as

aforesaid he was bound by the result of that suit. In the view

we have taken that the final foreclosure decree was

competently passed by the trial court, his right to equity of

redemption was extinguished by that decree and he had

therefore no longer any right to redeem the said mortgage.

His appeal against the said final decree was misconceived

and the High Court was in error in allowing it and in passing

the said order of remand directing the trial court to reopen

the question of redemption and to allow the respondent to

participate in proceedings to amend the said preliminary

decree.”

25.Thus, we find that the High Court has misread the judgment of this

Court in Samarendra Nath Sinha. It is not a case of transfer from

mortgage prior to the decree of foreclosure but a case of purchaser

pending lis.

16

26.Another judgment referred to by the High Court is Mrutunjay Pani

& Anr. v. Narmada Bala Sasmal & Anr.

12

It was an appeal filed

by the mortgagee who claimed to have purchased the equity of

redemption. The argument of the appellant was that the

mortgagee has failed to pay rent which was the responsibility of

the mortgagor in terms of the mortgage deed. For the default of

payment of arrears of rent, the property was put to sale and was

purchased by the mortgagee. Therefore, the remedy of the

mortgagor is to seek setting aside of sale. It was held as under:

“7. The legal position may be stated thus: (1) The governing

principle is “once a mortgage always a mortgage” till the

mortgage is terminated by the act of the parties themselves,

by merger or by order of the court. (2) Where a mortgagee

purchases the equity of redemption in execution of his

mortgage decree with the leave of court or in execution of a

mortgage or money decree obtained by a third party, the

equity of redemption may be extinguished; and, in that

event, the mortgagor cannot sue for redemption without

getting the sale set aside. (3) Where a mortgagor purchases

the mortgaged property by reason of a default committed by

him the mortgage is not extinguished and the relationship of

mortgagor and mortgagee continues to subsist even

thereafter, for his purchase of the equity of redemption is

only in trust for the mortgagor.”

The said judgment does not advance the case of the

mortgagee.

27.Thus, the decree passed in the suit for foreclosure is a decree

which is void and non-est. The decree is a result of collusion

between defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant No. 3 so as to frustrate

rights of a purchaser from the mortgagor.

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the share of the

12 AIR 1961 SC 1353

17

property purchased by him on the payment of the entire mortgage

amount?

28.This Court in Shivdev Singh; Achaldas Durgaji Oswal and

Jamila Begum has held that right to redemption is not an

equitable relief, it is a statutory right. Therefore, the appellant has

a right to redeem land provided the right is not extinguished by

decree of the Court. As discussed above, the decree passed at the

back of the transferee mortgagor prior to the filing of the suit for

foreclosure cannot be said to be a valid decree.

29.The appellant has purchased the land measuring 1 acre 32 gunthas

comprising in Survey No. 67/3 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-. No part of

the sale consideration was paid to the owners or was kept by the

appellant for payment to the mortgagee. Thus, it was unequivocal

sale of complete rights in the land comprising in Survey No. 67/3.

Section 60 of the Act provides that a person interested in a share of

the mortgaged property will not entitle him to redeem his own

share on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining

due on mortgage. Therefore, conversely, a purchaser from the

mortgagor is entitled to redeem the share of the land purchased by

him but on payment of the entire mortgage amount. The First

Appellate Court has returned such finding in favour of the appellant

in Point No. 3 wherein it was held as under:

“POINT NO. 3:- The answer to this point is a decision in Bank

of Bank of Poona v. Navrajasthan Cooperative Housing

Society Ltd., reported in 1967 Mh.L.J. 774 (AIR 1968 Bom

106), in which the Plaintiff had purchased a portion of the

mortgaged property and it was held that he had a right to

redeem only a portion which he had purchased by making

18

payment of the proportionate mortgage amount. Second

part of Section 60 cannot be made applicable to the present

case, as only in respect of the property purchased by the

Plaintiff a right to redeem is inexistence, while in respect of

the other part, of which Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are the

owners, right to redeem is extinguished, therefore even if

the Plaintiff redeems the suit land it will not be a redemption

in part.”

30.Therefore, the decree of foreclosure passed in the suit filed by the

mortgagee will not extinguish the right of the mortgagor to redeem

land in view of the fact that he was not impleaded as a party in the

suit though he has purchased part of the mortgaged property by

virtue of registered sale deed.

31.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High

Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court is restored.

The appellant is given three months’ time to deposit the mortgage

amount and when the amount is deposited, he shall be entitled to

seek restoration of possession which was taken from him in execu-

tion of a decree of foreclosure. The Executing Court shall ensure

that the delivery of possession be given to the appellant in an ex-

peditious manner.

............................................J.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

.............................................J.

(A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 17, 2021.

19