Skip to content


Marturu Subbamma Vs. Gadde Narayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in43Ind.Cas.4; (1917)33MLJ623
AppellantMarturu Subbamma
RespondentGadde Narayya
Cases ReferredIn Ram Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukherji I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - on the contrary the fact that the mortgagor was unable to put the mortgagee in a position to realize his security out of the rents and profits makes it only reasonable that he should be remitted to the ordinary remedies of a mortgagee by foreclosure or sale, and the legislature has recognized this by making the mortgage money payable in this event-he has advanced his money on the security of the mortgagor's interest in the property, and mortgagor has fail ed to perform his part of the contract by putting him in possession and enabling him to realize his security in that manner, and bhere is no reason why he should not be allowed to realize it by bringing the mortgagor's interest to sale if......or sale under the section in the absence of a contract to the contrary ' at any time after the mortgage money has become payable to him.' section 68 entitles the mortgagee to sue the mortgagor for the mortgage money 'where the mortgagee, being entitled to possession of the property the mortgagor fails to deliver the same to him, or to secure the possession thereof to him without disturbance by the mortgagor or any other person.' the first of these events having happened the mortgagee has become entitled to sue for the mortgage-money, or in other words, the mortgage money has become payable to him, and he is entitled under section 67 to sue for foreclosure or sale, in the absence of a contract to the contrary which cannot be implied. on the contrary the fact that the mortgagor was.....
Judgment:

Wallis, C.J.

1. I agree with the referring Judges and answer the question in the affirmative. A mortgagee does not become a usufructuary mortgagee within the meaning of Section 58 (d) until the mortgagor has given him possession of the mortgaged property and so put him in a position to realize his security out of the accruing rents and profits. It is because the intention is that the security shall be realised in this manner that by Section 67 proviso (a) a usufructuary mortgagee as such is debarred from suing for foreclosure or sale under the section. A mortgagee to whom possession has not been given is not a usufructuary mortgagee. Consequently he does not come within the proviso and is entitled to sue for foreclosure or sale under the section in the absence of a contract to the contrary ' at any time after the mortgage money has become payable to him.' Section 68 entitles the mortgagee to sue the mortgagor for the mortgage money 'where the mortgagee, being entitled to possession of the property the mortgagor fails to deliver the same to him, or to secure the possession thereof to him without disturbance by the mortgagor or any other person.' The first of these events having happened the mortgagee has become entitled to sue for the mortgage-money, or in other words, the mortgage money has become payable to him, and he is entitled under Section 67 to sue for foreclosure or sale, in the absence of a contract to the contrary which cannot be implied. On the contrary the fact that the mortgagor was unable to put the mortgagee in a position to realize his security out of the rents and profits makes it only reasonable that he should be remitted to the ordinary remedies of a mortgagee by foreclosure or sale, and the legislature has recognized this by making the mortgage money payable in this event-He has advanced his money on the security of the mortgagor's interest in the property, and mortgagor has fail ed to perform his part of the contract by putting him in possession and enabling him to realize his security in that manner, and bhere is no reason why he should not be allowed to realize it by bringing the mortgagor's interest to sale if. he so desires or for requiring him to undergo the expense and trouble of litigation with third parties unless he is content to lose his security. These aspects of the question appear to have been overlooked in Samayya v. Nagalingam I.L.R. (1891) M. 174, Arunachalam Chetti v. Ayyavayyan I.L.R. (1898) M. 476. In Ram Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukherji I.L.R. (1916) C. 988 the Judicial Committee observed, 'It must also be borne in mind that if the mortgagor be in the first instance under no personal liability, such liability may arise under Section 68(b) or (c) of the Transfer of Property Act.' As pointed out in the order of reference, once the mortgage money becomes payable under any clause in Section 68, there can be no reason for refusing to give effect to Section 97 which allows of a suit for foreclosure or sale 'at any time after the mortgage money has become payable' except in certain cases of which this is not one.

2. I accordingly answer the question in the affirmative.

Ayling, J.

3. I concur.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

4. I agree and have nothing useful to add to what I have said in the order of reference.


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