Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. This takes the matter for testing the maintainability of the suit on another ground: seeking partial partition. It is not in dispute that Ext.A3 final decree has been passed in O.S.No.163 of 1964, and in this 'A' schedule property has been divided into plots and the plaintiff was allotted Plot No.4, which measures 5 cents. Indeed, even the preliminary decree for partition was passed only subject to the mortgage debt due payable to the first defendant. That the first defendant happened to be the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant, would not alter her character as a mortgagee of 'A' schedule property. Under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, bars partial redemption of mortgage, but it is subject to certain exceptions. The last paragraph of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as below :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(MD)Nos.420 and 421 of 2002 Redemption of portion of mortgaged property - Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.' If the facts on record is tested on the plane of the aforesaid provision, it could be seen that part of equity of redemption vested in Kumara Pillai, had devolved on his wife-cum-mortgagee. In other words, the integrity of the mortgage is disturbed by the legal consequences flowing out of the death of the mortgagor. Once it is achieved at one level, then it has to enable partial redemption of the plot No.4 allotted to the plaintiff under Ext.A3 final decree passed in O.S.164 of 1963 at another level.