Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The agreement that the mortgagor shall pay the amount due on the subsequently executed bond before he redeems the prior mortgage is an agreement to create a charge on the property previously mortgaged. This was the view taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Aditya Prasad v. Ram Ratan Lal AIR 1930 PC 176. In addition to the language which was found sufficient by their Lordships of the Privy Council to create a further charge, we have got the stipulation on the part of the mortgagors that they would not mortgage or sell the property previously mortgaged till the money due on the subsequently executed document had been paid. This stipulation meant that the previously mortgaged property was made security for the payment of the money subsequently borrowed. We are I accordingly of opinion that all the four I documents create further charges on the property mortgaged in 1883. The learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that according to certain facts, which will be presently stated, a sale deed of 20th July 1920 by reason of the fact that it is registered and the four documents No. 1 to 4, are unregistered, the sale deed has a priority over those documents under the provisions of Section 50, Registration Act. It appears that certain descendants of Gobind Singh belonging to the branches of Din Dayal, Ram Roshan and Ajit sold their shares by the sale-deed of 28th July 1920 for a sum of Rupees 700 in favour of Harnam Singh's branch and the plaintiff.

8. The sale-deed makes no mention of the four deeds of further charge enumerated above although it mentions the mortgage of 1883. Jaipal, the plaintiff and one of the purchasers under the deed of 1920, reliquished his rights acquired under the sale-deed in favour of his co-vendees (descendants of Harnam's branch). Subsequently the members of Harnam's branch made a mortgage of the property acquired in 1920 and also their original shares, in favour of Jaipal. Jaipal brought a suit for sale on that mortgage and in execution of the decree that followed purchased the property himself. The argument therefore was advanced that the sale-deed of 1920 for all practical purposes annulled the four unregistered documents. This plca however was not rasied before the arguments were addiesscd in the Court of the Munsif. The learned Munsif noticed the fact that the plea had been raised very late. The belatedness of the plea precluded the defendants from raising the possible plea that the plaintiff made the purchase of 1920 with notice of the pre-existing unregistered documents. We find that the plaintiff purchased with members of Harnam Singh's branch and Harnam Singh's branch belong to the same family to which the vendors belong. It is quite possible therefore that Harnam Singh's branch, and through them the plaintiff, were all aware of the existence of the four unregistered documents. The plaintiff in our opinion should have raised his plea, which he now wants to substantiate, as soon as the defendants pleaded the four unregistered documents. In our opinion we should not allow the plaintiff now to raise the plea.

9. The next point to be considered is what is the liability of the property under the four unregistered documents. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad has very correctly argued that for the purposes of determining the liability we should separate the several shares which belonged to the several branches. The fact that the defendants, the mortgagees, tinder the deed of 1883 purchased a two pies share out of the property mortgaged to them broke up the integrity of the mortgage and therefore it is not open to the plaintiff to redeem more than the share purchased by him. That share, as we have already pointed out is 18 2/7 pies. The document No. 1, the deed of further charge dated 16th July 1884, was executed by Ajit Singh's branch and therefore the original four pies share of Ajit Singh can be redeemed only on payment of 1/7 of Rs. 600 the mortgage money under the deed of 1883 and the amount due under the document dated 16th July 1884 (document No. 1.) Din Dayal's original share of four pies is free from any further charge because nobody belonging to his branch ever created any. Therefore the four pies share originally belonging to Din Dayal may be redeemed on payment of only 1/7 portion of Rs. 600. Ram Roshan Singh's original four pies share is charged under document No. 3. This will therefore be redeemable on payment of 1/7 of Rs. 600 plus the amount payable under the document of 11th April 1885. As to the further charge created by the document No. 2 dated 6th September 1884, that document was executed by two persons, namely, Deo Narain, grandson of Harnam, and Mata Prasad, grandson of Ram Ghulam. Ram Ghulam's two pies share is now in the possession of the defendants-mortgagees. Harnam's two pies share is liable to be redeemed and it would be redeemable on payment of 1/14 portion of Rs. 600 plus one-half of the money due under the document No. 2 dated 6th September 1884. The other half of Harnam's original share, namely two pics, is redeemable on payment of only 1/14 portion of Rs. 600. Kalu's four pies share was inherited to the extent of 2 2/7 pies by the four branches of the plaintiff's vendors. Kalu's successors created the 4th further charge under document No. 4 dated 4th September 1885. The plaintiff would be entitled to redeem this 2 2/7 pies share on payment of 4/7 share of 1/7 of Rs. 600 plus 4/7 of the amount due under document No. 4 dated 4th September 1855.