Declaration and possession in alternative for partition – Property Mortgaged – Partitioned among co sharers – some of them filed redemption suit – one co sharer paid entire amount and redeem the property – whether the redemptor is liable to give share in the redeemed property – since the plaintiff is an assignee from certain non-redeeming co-mortgagors of a share in 'C' Schedule property. Is entitled for partition and for separate possession of his share -2015 SC(2003) MSK LAW REPORTS 8

There was a piece of land measuring 1.2 acres in area which
belonged to 18 members of a family of   Sripandarachetti Cult.  It was
mortgaged in 1902. 
There was a partition amongst different groups. 
The properties involved in partition were listed as Schedules 'A', 'B', 'C'
and 'D'. 
The 'C' Schedule comprised of 30 cents. 
The property in
dispute herein is referable to this Schedule 'C' land. 
Hereinafter, it is referred to as the 'property in suit'.
After the partition,  10 members  out of
the 18  to whom different portions of the mortgaged property were
allotted filed the suit, bearing O.S. No.464 of 1117 of Malalyalam Era,
for redemption.  The suit was decreed in 1950.  After the decree one
Chellapan Pillai (who died during the pendency of these proceedings
and in whose place defendant No.1 stands substituted) got the
property Schedule 'C' redeemed by making full payment of mortgage
money.  He also entered into possession over the property in the year
1953.  =
The appellant-plaintiff is the assignee from certain non-
redeeming co-mortgagors of a share in  'C' Schedule property.  His
share in the property is stated to be 9/12th in 25 cents of 'C' Schedule
property.  In the year 1971, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking
relief of declaration of title with recovery of possession, and in the
alternative, the relief of partition. =
The present one is a case of subrogation by the operation of law
and hence governed by the first para of Section 92 of the Transfer of
Property Act.  The provision recognizes the same equity of
reimbursement as underlies Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act that
"a person who is interested in the payment of money, which another is
bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be
reimbursed by the other".  Such a payment made, carries with it, at
times, an equitable charge.  Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act
does not have the effect of a substitutee becoming a mortgagee. The
provision confers certain rights on the re-deeming co-mortgagor and
also provides for the remedies of redemption, foreclosure and sale
being available to the substitutee as they were available to the
substituted.  These rights the subrogee exercises not as a mortgagee
reincarnate but by way of rights akin to those vesting in the
mortgagee.  The co-mortgagor can be a co-owner too.  A property
subject to mortgage is available as between co-mortgagors for
partition, of course, subject to adjustment for the burden on the
property.  One of the co-mortgagors, by redeeming the mortgage in its
entirety, cannot claim a right higher than what he otherwise had,
faced with a claim for partition by the other co-owner.  He cannot
defeat the legal claim for partition though he can insist on the exercise
of such legal right claimed by the other co-owner-cum-mortgagor
being made subject to the exercise of the equitable right vesting in
him by subrogation.

Whether joint-tenants or tenants-in-common the
fact remains that the status of the plaintiff and defendant was that of
co-mortgagors, one being a non-redeeming co-mortgagor and the
other being a redeeming co-mortgagor. 
The law would remain the
same and its applicability would not change whether the parties are
treated as co-tenants or tenants-in-common.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is held liable to be
The suit filed by the appellant is held as one within limitation. 

The plaintiff is held entitled to the preliminary decree for partition. -2015 SC(2003) MSK LAW REPORTS 8

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS