Appeal against decree confirming judgment in suit for redemption of mortgage. High Court held no substantial question of law arose as mortgage deed subsisted and appeal was dismissed.
The regular second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NAGATHIBELAGALU VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGGA-DISTRICT - 577 233.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
OF OS-369/2008) AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NAGATHIBELAGALU VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGGA-DISTRICT - 577 233.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
PRAROSHARAMA IN JUDGMENT OF RA 15/2015) AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAGATHIBELAGALU VILALGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 233.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA FILED U/S.100 OF CPC 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED IN RA NO 15/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHADRAVATHI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.369/2008 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR JUDGEMENT OR DIRECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Parashuramappa - husband and father of the plaintiffs, respectively, during his lifetime had by a registered deed of mortgage dated 19.08.1992 created a usufructuary mortgage in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the original defendant - B.Rajappa for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on condition that the said sum of Rs.50,000/- would carry no interest and that the property, possession of which delivered to the defendant would be recovered by paying the said sum of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three years. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their husband and father, respectively, namely Parashuramappa passed away leaving behind him, his legal heirs. Despite the plaintiffs requesting defendant to receive the sum of Rs.50,000/- and to re-deliver the property by redeeming the mortgage, defendant did not come forward, constraining the plaintiffs to issue a notice dated 02.07.2008 calling upon the defendant to redeem the mortgage by receiving the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-. Since there was no response by the defendant, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption.
and also admitting deceased Parashuramappa to be the owner of the suit property. It is contended that since the deceased Parashuramappa was in need of further amount, he had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-. Accordingly, an agreement of sale dated 04.09.1992 was entered into between Parashuramappa and the defendant. Defendant had paid additional sum of Rs.70,000/to Parashuramappa. Thus, he had in aggregate paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. That when the defendant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and was ready to obtain the execution and registration of the sale deed, deceased Parashuramappa had denied and protracted the matter on one pretext or the other. Even the plaintiffs refused to comply with the request and demand made by the defendant and the present suit was, therefore, not maintainable.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
the defendant for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-, of which, defendant had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:6503 RSA No. 2519 of 2018
That being so, as taken note of by the Trial Court, during the subsistence of such mortgage deed which is a registered document, an unregistered document in the nature of agreement of sale on 04.09.1992 cannot be considered as creating any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant. Further, the defendant has neither sought for any counter claim nor has taken any action against the plaintiffs pursuant to the said agreement of sale.
Sd/JUDGE
KK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for redemption of mortgage is barred by limitation or merged by a subsequent agreement of sale.
Sharath Patil S/o Late Rajappa
Madhu Patil S/o Rajappa
Smt. Puttamma
Gangadhara
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
