Skip to content


Ram DIn Singh Vs. Sarju Prasad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil ;Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940All431
AppellantRam DIn Singh
RespondentSarju Prasad and ors.
Excerpt:
- - it follows that the plaintiffs acquired good title to the mortgagee rights by their auction purchase of the year 1929 and the sale in favour of the defendant-appellant conveyed no right to him......fixed the 21st october 1929 for the sale of zamindari properties and 24th october 1929 for the sale of mortgagee rights. as there is no dispute in the present litigation with respect to the zamindari properties it is unnecessary to state anything about the sale of those properties. the mortgagee rights under the five usufructuary mortgage deeds were sold by the collector and admittedly purchased by the plaintiff-respondents in execution of their decree on 22nd october 1929.2. thereafter the same mortgagee rights were put to sale by the court at the instance of the defendant-appellant on 26th january 1930 and were purchased by the defendant-appellant. it would thus appear that the purchase of the mortgagee rights by the defendant-appellant was after the purchase of those rights by the.....
Judgment:

Iqbal Ahmad, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain haqiats and tenancy plots specified at the foot of the plaint and for Rs. 200 on account of damages. The facts that culminated in the suit giving rise to the present appeal are undisputed and are as follows: The plaintiff-respondents held a simple money decree against one Har Narain Singh. Ram Din Singh, defendant-appellant, also had obtained a simple money decree against Har Narain Singh. Har Narain Singh was mortgagee under certain usufructuary mortgage deeds and the haqiats and the tenancy plots in dispute in the present litigation were mortgaged with possession to Har Narain Singh. Both the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellant took out; execution of their respective decrees and, apart from other zamindari properties, attached the mortgagee rights of Har Narain Singh under the five usufructuary mortgage deeds. The zamindari properties attached by the plaintiffs and the defendant were ancestral properties of Har Narain Singh and the execution was transferred to the Collector and the Collector fixed the 21st October 1929 for the sale of zamindari properties and 24th October 1929 for the sale of mortgagee rights. As there is no dispute in the present litigation with respect to the zamindari properties it is unnecessary to state anything about the sale of those properties. The mortgagee rights under the five usufructuary mortgage deeds were sold by the Collector and admittedly purchased by the plaintiff-respondents in execution of their decree on 22nd October 1929.

2. Thereafter the same mortgagee rights were put to sale by the Court at the instance of the defendant-appellant on 26th January 1930 and were purchased by the defendant-appellant. It would thus appear that the purchase of the mortgagee rights by the defendant-appellant was after the purchase of those rights by the plaintiffs at the auction sale held by the Collector. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant applied for mutation in the Revenue Court and that Court granted mutation in favour of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs then filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal. The case put forward by the plaintiffs was that the mortgagee rights constituted immovable property and the Civil Court had therefore no jurisdiction to sell the same. On these allegations the plaintiffs maintained that by the purchase made by them on 22nd October 1929, they became entitled to the mortgagee rights and that the sale by the Civil Court being without jurisdiction, the defendant acquired no right with respect to the mortgagee rights by his purchase of 26th January 1930. This contention of the plaintiffs was accepted by both the Courts below and those Courts decreed the plaintiffs' claim for possession over the properties in suit in the capacity of mortgagees and for recovery of Rs. 85 on account of damages.

3. The defendant has come up in appeal to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the view taken by the Courts below is erroneous. We are unable to agree with this contention of the defendant-appellant. The decision of the appeal depends on the determination of the question whether a mortgagee's interest in a usufructuary mortgage is an immovable property or moveable property. If the mortgagee's interest under such a mortgage is immovable property it is conceded that the decrees of the Courts below are correct. The question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jang Bahadur v. Bhagat Ram Sheo Prasad. : AIR1930All110 , and it was held in that case that a mortgagee's interest in a usufructuary mortgage is an immovable property within the meaning of Rule 89, Order 21, Civil P.C. To the same effect are the decisions of the Calcutta and the Bombay High Courts. The Madras High Court has however taken the contrary view.

4. It is no doubt true that a transaction of usufructuary mortgage creates the relation of a debtor and creditor between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. It is therefore in one sense correct to say that when the interest of a usufructuary mortgagee is sold his rights as a creditor pass from him to the auction-purchaser and the debt that is due to him stands transferred to the auction-purchaser. After the auction-purchase the mortgagor becomes indebted to the auction-purchaser. In this limited sense the debt due to the judgment-debtor is sold and purchased by the auction-purchaser. But the interest of usufructuary mortgagee is not that of a mere simple money creditor. By the mortgage an interest in immovable property is transferred to the mortgagee and by virtue of that transfer he is entitled to the possession of immovable property. The sale of the rights of a usufructuary mortgagee conveys to the auction-purchaser the right to the possession of immovable property mortgaged. In other words, the sale is not only of the debt due to the mortgagee but also of his right to possession of immovable property. The property sold, viz., the mortgagee rights is, therefore immovable property. It follows that the plaintiffs acquired good title to the mortgagee rights by their auction purchase of the year 1929 and the sale in favour of the defendant-appellant conveyed no right to him. For the reasons given above we dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //