12.08.2025 Prono Kundan Sing n Singh and others v. 2. COCP OCP No.25
Case Details
RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA HARYANA AT CHAN E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH 212 RSA N RSA No.1671 of 2000 (O&M) Reserv Reserved on:06.08.2025 Pronounced on:12.08.2025 Prono Kundan Sing n Singh and others ...Appellants Joginder Sing er Singh and others ...Respondents Vs 2. COCP OCP No.2542 of 2015 (O&M) Kundan Sing n Singh and another ...Petitioners Joginder Sing er Singh and others ...Respondents Vs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate ocate vocate Ms. Saanchi Mahajan, Advocate No.1671 of 2000 and for the appellants in RSA No.16 P No.2542 of 2015. for the petitioners in COCP No.2 ocate Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate the respondents. -.- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of This o 1 of two cases i.e. RSA No.1671 of 2000 and C and COCP No.2542 of 2015. The the The former is preferred by the appellants-de defendants No.1 to 4 against the ered nst the concurrent finding rendered vide judgmen dgments and decrees dated 31.03.1999 y the 3.1999 and 19.01.2000 passed by the learned trial C trial Court and the learned 1st Appella reby ppellate Court respectively whereby the suit for po t for possession by way of redemption dent ption filed by contesting respondent No.1-plaintif laintiff was decreed and the appeal p esaid peal preferred against the aforesaid judgment an nt and decree by the appellants- tood -defendants No.1 to 4, stood dismissed. Th The latter has been filed by the pe to 4 the petitioners-defendants No.1 to 4 under Sectio Section 12 of the Contempt of Co sing of Courts Act, 1971 for imposing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -2- appropriate p riate punishment on the respondents e of ndents for willful disobedience of orders dated dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P-1) an 2) 1) and 14.03.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by thi by this Court in aforementioned regul sake regular second appeal. For the sake of brevity, fa ity, facts are being enumerated from R from RSA No.1671 of 2000. 2. Succinctly, the facts are that Harbans Succin ns of arbans Singh, Rattan Singh sons of Ganga Singh
Legal Reasoning
wer is in negative. This Court in Nau gh Naurang Singh Vs. Jangir Singh AIR 1985 P 85 P&H 268 has held that wher r of where one only of a number of mortgagees h gees has acquired by purchase a part ty, it a part of the mortgaged property, it cannot be sai be said that the mortgage over that p sale. that portion has merged in the sale. The purchase rchaser mortgagee cannot insist that eem t that the mortgagor should redeem only that par at part of the property, which has not adras as not been purchased. The Madras High Court i ourt in Eswara Krishna Aiyar and A iar nd Anr. Vs Mariya Susai Reddiar and Ors. AIR . AIR 1940 MADRAS 498 has held a held as under:- “……It may be necessary in t the in this connection to examine the reason why an exception is ma the s made to the general rule that the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671671 of 2000 (O&M) -10- redemption must be of an ent ses entirety of the property in cases where the mortgagee acquire or. uires a share of the mortgagor. When the mortgagee acquires he uires the equity of redemption he steps into the shoes of the the the mortgagor in respect of the property purchased subject to ur. ct to the mortgage in his favour. There is thus, a fusion of intere nd nterests of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee and the mortga he rtgage becomes extinguished. The result of the extinguishment is ver nt is that the mortgage debt over that property is wiped out, the out, though every parcel of the mortgaged property so far as is as the mortgagee is concerned is liable for the entire mortgag the rtgage debt but as between the mortgaged properties they are bly are liable to contribute rate ably to the debt (Section 82 of the T his the Transfer of Property Act). This principle would apply as betwe As etween the mortgagors inter se. As the mortgagee by purchase ion ase of the equity of redemption becomes a mortgagor in respe ed, respect of the property purchased, the principle would apply also is also against him by virtue of his taking the character of a mortg of ortgagor in respect of a portion of the property. The extent of the be f the debt that is wiped out will be proportionate to the relative va ed. ve value of the property purchased. In the case of a single mortg ore ortgagor or where there is more with than one mortgagor, with their consent, when the the mortgagee purchases the equit or equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no que eal question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise beca rty because the rest of the property would still be owned by the mo d it e mortgagor or mortgagors and it would be liable for the remai It emainder of the mortgage debt. It may be said that the rest of the the f the property is "the share of the mortgagor" within the meani not eaning of the section. It does not matter, whether the equity of in ty of redemption is purchased in execution of a decree agains ate ainst a mortgagor or by private treaty. The principle applicab oth icable would be the same in both cases. Vide Bisheshur Dial v. 22 l v. Ram Sarup (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 284 (F.B.) (execution s v. n sale), Ponnambala Pillai v. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -11- Annamalai Chettiar (1920) 38 ad. ) 38 M.L.J. 239 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 372 (F.B.) (execution sale) and Lal ) and Mutty Lal Pal v. Nandu Lal Neogi (1908) 12 C.W.N. 745 in 45. Where a person interested in the mortgaged property is n nd is not the mortgagor alone and before the purchase of equity the uity of redemption portions of the mortgaged property become ve ere e vested in third parties or where the mortgagee purchases from an from a co-sharer his share or an item of property from an ow nct n owner who held it in distinct ownership, not only is the deb but e debt pro tanto extinguished but the owners of different items the ems will be entitled to redeem the properties on payment of the p ebt. the proportionate part of the debt. There is no doubt about the he the applicability of this rule. The same principle would apply the pply in whatsoever manner the equity of redemption is acquir is, cquired by the mortgagee, that is, by inheritance or by devis ad devise- Hamida Bibi v. Ahmad Hussain (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 3 All. 335.” 15. The ju The judgment relied upon by learne - learned counsel for the appellants- defendants N ants No.1 to 4 in Mt. Jagannath Kum s not Kumar and others (supra) does not come to his to his rescue, as in this case, it is he gees held that where the mortgagees purchase a sh se a share out of the property mortgag f the ortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is b ge is broken and therefore, it is not op some not open to the purchaser from some of the mortg mortgagors to redeem more than t him. than the share purchased by him. However, in in the case in hand, the person se else son seeking redemption is none else but the mort e mortgagor and not any purchaser third haser from the mortgagor i.e. third party. Furt Furthermore, the judgment relied the relied by learned counsel for the nts appellants in Jamila Begum (D) i through LRs (supra) thro also is also distinguishab uishable on facts, in this case, the app ntire he appellant had purchased the entire property and ty and thus, there was a merger of was ger of title and the mortgage was extinguished uished by acts of parties. Mere purc aged e purchase of a share of mortgaged PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -12- property from ty from one of the mortgagors with c gors with consent of other co-mortgagors does not ext ot extinguish the mortgage. There ca of a ere can be no extinguishment of a mortgage eit ge either completely or in part only i In only if there is a merger of title. In the case of a e of a single mortgagor or where ther gor, re there is more than one mortgagor, with their con eir consent, when the mortgagee purch ption e purchases the equity of redemption in an item o item or a part of the property, no qu meal no question of partial or piecemeal redemption w tion would arise because the rest o ll be rest of the property would still be owned by th by the mortgagor or mortgagors. omes . Mortgaged property becomes divisible only le only when there is a fusion of th gors of the interest of all the mortgagors with that of at of the mortgagees. When a mortg res a mortgagee in possession acquires a portion of of equity of redemption, the m ished the mortgage is not extinguished completely. . There can be only a pro tanto gage extinguishment of the mortgage right to the e the extent of the mortgagee acquirin t and cquiring the mortgagor's interest and so far as the as the other sharer of the equity of , the ity of redemption is concerned, the mortgage wi ge will subsist. The question of bre ould of breaking of the mortgage would arise only w nly when the entire right of the m the the mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagee an gee and not when a fractional interest rs is terest of one of the co-mortgagors is acquired by t ed by the mortgagee or his legal repre , the l representatives. Undisputedly, the suit property operty is a joint holding and since the .1 to ce the appellants-defendants No.1 to 4 have steppe stepped into the shoes of mortgagors b on of agors by purchasing some fraction of suit property operty from legal heirs of one of the reby, of the mortgagors, meaning thereby, have becom ecome co-sharers, both the courts bel that rts below have rightly observed that they are enti re entitled to get partitioned the suit la eeds suit land on the basis of sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3, emed. to D3, after the suit land is redeemed. 16. In view of the judgments pass reme ts passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pan Pankajakshi (Dead) through Lega ers Legal Representatives and others PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -13- Vs. Chandri ndrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 15 hvi C 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh a gh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 ad) 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LR LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead , (dead) through LRs and others, questions of ns of law are not required to be frame e the framed in second appeal before the Punjab and H and Haryana High Court whose jur d by ose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of ions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Courts Act, 1918. 17. As an upshot of above discussio ality cussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversit rversity in the concurrent finding rend elow g rendered by both the Courts below and the sam e same is upheld. Resultantly, t is tly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 18. The contempt petition also sta thing lso stands disposed of, as nothing survives for for consideration therein, in view o this view of the judgment passed by this Court in the r in the regular second appeal. 19. Misc. application(s) pending, if a
Arguments
Singh and Smt. Keso widow of G rs in of Ganga Singh were owners in possession of sion of the land in dispute mentioned laint tioned in the head-note of the plaint and they m ey mortgaged the same with defe are defendants No.1 to 4, who are appellants be nts before this Court, on 10.06.1975 a deed .1975 and executed a mortgage deed in their favou r favour for a period of 14 years i.e. up , i.e. upto 10.06.1989. Harbans Singh, mortgagor, died on 10.10.1991 and being was being unmarried, his estate was inherited by ed by defendant No.8-Bachan Singh No.5 Singh (proforma respondent No.5 before this C this Court) and his sister Tari Kaur. her Kaur. Tari Kaur also died and her legal heirs ar eirs are defendants No.11 to 13 (prof o 10 proforma respondents No.8 to 10 before this C this Court). On death of Rattan Sin was n Singh, mortgagor, his estate was inherited by h ed by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh ingh Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh (proforma respondent No.6 before this Co inder his Court), Balkar Singh, Swinder Singh alias J alias Jaswant Singh (proforma respon ourt) respondent No.7 before this Court) and his wido s widow Smt. Mayo and out of them S ingh, them Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh Singh and Mayo also died. Sulakhan alkar lakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh remain remained unmarried throughout their and t their life and defendants No.9 and 10 namely K ely Kashmir Singh and Swinder S i.e. der Singh alias Jaswant Singh i.e. proforma res respondents No.6 and 7 respective ir pectively before this Court, are their legal heirs. Smt. Keso has also died and he her and her estate was inherited by her grandsons i.e i.e. defendants No. 5 to 7 (prof to 4 (proforma respondents No.2 to 4 before this C this Court) namely Swinder Singh, V and ingh, Virsa Singh, Kirpal Singh and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -3- by the plain plaintiff-Joginder Singh (contesting this esting respondent No.1 before this Court) on the on the basis of valid Will and mutati 1981 mutation No.1373 dated 31.08.1981 has also been o been sanctioned in this regard. A cas f the case regarding redemption of the suit land wa nd was filed by contesting responden legal pondent No.1-plaintiff, who is legal heir of Bacha Bachan Singh (proforma respondent n the ndent No.5 before this Court) in the court of S.D. f S.D.O. (Civil), Gurdaspur exercisin but ercising the powers of Collector but the same was e was withdrawn by him due to the n the to the incapacity of the Court on the basis of pecu f pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, h to 13 fter, he asked defendants No.5 to 13 to pay the m mortgage money to defendants N land ants No.1 to 4 and get the suit land redeemed bu but when they showed their incapa gage incapacity in paying of the mortgage money to de to defendants No. 1 to 4, he came gage came forward to pay the mortgage money to d to defendants No.1 to 4 for gett med. r getting the suit land redeemed. Defendants ants No.5 to 13 were put at liberty t suit berty to join at any stage of the suit and can get t n get their share of the suit land after p ey of after paying the mortgage money of their share t hare to the plaintiff. The plaintiff a - intiff asked defendants No.1 to 4- mortgagees gees to take the mortgage money f r the oney from him and to deliver the possession of sion of the suit land to him one day pr it but day prior to the filing of the suit but they refused efused to do so. Hence, the instant f for stant suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by sion by way of redemption of the suit gage uit land on the basis of mortgage deed dated 10.06.1975 against defendants No nts No.1 to 4. 3. Defend Defendants No.1 to 4 contested the su ment the suit by filing written statement on the ground ground that the suit is barred under O nder der Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and under Order 23 R 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C. On merits, defen that , defendants No.1 to 4 admitted that Harbans Sing s Singh, Rattan Singh and Keso wer land so were the owners of the suit land and they mor y mortgaged the same with them on 1 deed on 10.06.1975 vide mortgage deed of the even even date with possession and the d d of the date of expiry of the period of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -4- mortgage wa ge was 10.06.1989. Defendants furth ingh, further admitted that Rattan Singh, mortgagor ha gor has died but they denied that his e sons t his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulak Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashm gh as Kashmir Singh and Balkar Singh as alleged in the in the plaint. According to these defe w of se defendants, Smt. Mayo, widow of Rattan Singh Singh succeeded to the estate of Ratt d her f Rattan Singh and she had sold her share in the s n the suit land to them and Sulakhan S sold khan Singh and his brothers also sold out their sha ir share in the suit land to them on ated m on the basis of sale deeds dated 06.04.1979, 1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.1979. It their 79. It was also contended in their written statem statement that the plaintiff filed a s suit ed a suit for redemption of the suit land, which hich was withdrawn by him withou a ithout seeking permission to file a fresh suit on uit on the same cause of action and as pped and as such, the plaintiff is estopped from filing th iling the present suit by his act and c that and conduct, therefore, prayed that the suit of the t of the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Defend Defendants No.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 fi ment 13 filed separate written statement whereby they y they admitted the claim of the plai had e plaintiff and prayed that they had no objection ection if the plaintiff get redeemed the their ed the suit land to the extent of their share from d from defendants No. 1 to 4 and they the d they will get their share from the plaintiff afte ff after paying the mortgage money also oney to him. Defendant No.9 also filed a separ separate written statement whereby f the ereby he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and ff and alleged that he has no objection med jection if the plaintiff get redeemed his share from re from defendants No 1 to 4 regardin ll get garding the suit land and he will get his share in t re in the suit land from the plaintiff af ey to f after paying mortgage money to intiff. the plaintiff. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, foll From t d by es, following issues were framed by the learned tr rned trial Court:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -5- RSA No.167 1) Wh Whether the plaintiff is entitled fo suit itled for the redemption of the suit property? OPP pro 2) Wh Whether the suit is barred under O rder der Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC? OPD 23 R 3) Rel Relief 6. Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Cour Qua is al as l Court after appreciating the oral as well as docum documentary evidence placed before vour efore it, returned a finding in favour of the plaint plaintiff and against defendants No. he is ts No.1 to 4 by holding that he is entitled to g to get the suit land redeemed fro 4 on ed from defendants No.1 to 4 on payment of th nt of the mortgage amount of Rs.39,00 o 13, .39,000/- and defendants No.5 to 13, who are also e also co-owners of the suit land, can land d, can get their share in the suit land from the plai he plaintiff after payment of their shar him. ir share of mortgage money to him. Issue No.2 w o.2 was not pressed by learned coun to 4, d counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, thus, the sui he suit was decreed vide judgment 2019 ment and decree dated 31.03.2019 passed by the by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved t and rieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passe passed by the learned trial Court, d by ourt, an appeal was preferred by defendants N ants No.1 to 4, which was also dismiss cond ismissed. Hence, the regular second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-def Learne that defendants No.1 to 4 argued that admittedly, Smt. Mayo Devi widow of R ingh, of Rattan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Dalbir Singh Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Balkar Sing s of r Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Rattan Singh Singh had sold their share of the land e, by e land to appellants and therefore, by the act of pa of parties, the integrity of the mortg that mortgage has been broken. In that eventuality, ality, the plaintiff could not seek the seek redemption of whole of the mortgaged pr ged property and his right of redemp own edemption was restricted to his own share. Furth Furthermore, he could not seek rede - k redemption on behalf of other co- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -6- sharers/co-mo mortgagors. In support of this c n the this contention, he relied upon the proviso to Se to Section 60 of the Transfer of Pro ht of of Property Act, 1882 that right of mortgagor to gor to redeem the suit property is ava s not is available only if such right is not extinguished ished by act of the parties or by dec gued by decree of a court. It was argued that since the ce the appellants have purchased a sh some d a share of the property from some of the mortg mortgagors, the right to redeem has ct of m has been extinguished by act of parties, as th , as the suit property has lost the ch this the character of mortgage. In this regard, relian ance was placed upon the judgme f the dgment passed by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Alla le Allahabad High Court passed in nd ed in Mt. JagannathKunwar and others Vs. J s. Jaipal and others AIR 1993 A that 3 Allahabad 257 to contend that where the mo the mortgagees purchase a share of th hem, e of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity egrity of the mortgage is broken and o the n and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser fro ser from some of the mortgagors to share ors to redeem more than the share purchased by sed by him. On the same analogy, intiff logy, the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot be hel be held entitled to seek redemption of hare. tion of property more than his share. Further relia r reliance was placed upon the judg n’ble e judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in Jamila Begum (D) throug (D) rough LRs Vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through LRs LRs and another where one of the d the of the mortgagees had purchased the entire mortga mortgaged property from the mortgag n’ble ortgagors and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court has held that purchase of ated se of property by sale deed dated 21.12.1970 is 970 is an act of the parties, by whic qua which the right of redemption qua the appellant pellant became extinguished. There r the Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant pra nt prayed for setting aside of the imp crees he impugned judgments and decrees passed by t by the learned Courts below and the w and dismissing the suit of the respondent N dent No.1-plaintiff. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -7- 8. Per contra, learned counsel ap dents sel appearing for the respondents argued that ju that judgments and decrees passed by elow sed by both the learned Courts below are based on sed on correct appreciation of facts a not facts and law and therefore, do not require any i any interference in the instant regula ayed regular second appeal, thus, prayed for dismissal missal of the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel f gone nsel for the parties and have gone through pape h paper book with their able assistance ited. istance as well as the case laws cited. 10. While issuing notice of motion 000, otion vide order dated 27.04.2000, this Court ha ourt had stayed the operation of imp crees f impugned judgments and decrees passed by t by the learned Courts below. T ated w. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2001, t 2001, the appeal was admitted and in to be and interim order was ordered to be continued. ued. In the contempt petition filed dants filed by the petitioners-defendants No.1 to 4, it o 4, it is contended that despite stay or to be stay orders granted and ordered to be continued by ued by this Court vide orders dated 001, dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001, respondent N dent No.-1/plaintiff and others entered cibly ntered into the suit property forcibly and raised a ised a boundary line throughout the len and the length of the land in dispute and thus, willfull illfully and deliberately disobeyed and eyed orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001 p 2001 passed by this Court. 11. The issue for consideration b ether tion before this Court is whether respondent N dent No.1/plaintiff can seek redemp - edemption on behalf of other co- mortgagors a gors as well and whether the right t suit right to seek redemption of the suit property has ty has been extinguished by act of f the ct of parties, as some part of the mortgaged pr ged property has been purchased by th d by the mortgagees themselves. 12. Right of mortgagor to rede redeem mortgaged property is is recognized a ized as a statutory and legal right un nsfer ht under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property A erty Act, 1882, which is reproduced a uced as under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671671 of 2000 (O&M) -8- “60. Right of mortgagor to re the to redeem.—At any time after the principal money has become du ht, e due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a p the a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require th to e the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-de ing deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property wh or which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee, (b) in (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged p ion ed property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c gor nd (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgag ch rtgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, the ect, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by to d by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledge ght edgement in writing that any right in derogation of his interest tra has t transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished: Provided that the right co not ht conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of th f a of the parties or by decree of a Court. The right conferred by th to by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is e it is called a suit for redemption. Nothing in this section der tion shall be deemed to render invalid any provision to the ef for e effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money or oney has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the to , the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before payme yment or tender of such money. Redemption of portion — tion of mortgaged property.— Nothing in this section shall en n a ll entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged pro are property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a propo unt roportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortg a ortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more ch ore mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acqui the cquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.” PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.167 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -9- 13. A mor mortgagor’s right of redemption i able, tion is indefeasible and invariable, which can b can be extinguished only in a ma Such a manner known to law. Such extinguishme ishment of the right can take place; by a place; (i) by act of parties viz; by a contract betw t between the parties, by a merger or r (ii) ger or by a statutory provision or (ii) by decree of ree of the court. Otherwise, a mor into a mortgagee who has entered into possession of sion of the mortgaged property under give under a mortgage will have to give up possession session of the property when a suit fo ss he suit for redemption is filed unless he shows that th that the right of redemption has com uit is s come to an end or that the suit is liable to be d to be dismissed on some other valid the valid ground. This flows from the legal princip principle, which is applicable to all ce a to all mortgages namely “once a mortgage, alw ge, always a mortgage”. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, .1 to t case, appellants-defendants No.1 to 4/mortgagees gagees purchased a share of the prope ne of property from legal heirs of one of the original ginal mortgagors namely Rattan Singh o D3 Singh vide sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3 dated 06.04.1 06.04.1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.19 , can .04.1979 respectively and thus, can such act of p ct of parties has resulted into extingui tself, tinguishment of the mortgage itself, the answer is
Decision
ng, if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIND RINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE August 12, Pankaj* 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh