Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. In both the decisions referred to above, this Court has held, that puisne mortgagee (second mortgagee) who was not impleaded as a party to the suit by a prior mortgagee (first mortgagee) can redeem the prior mortgage (first mortgage). Hence, it is clear that the present plaintiff, being the puisne mortgagee seeking a decree for a sale in his favour, has to pay the amount due under the prior mortgagee decree.

18. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the principle that the puisne mortgagee must redeem the earlier mortgage is not based on statutory provision and in any event, the earlier mortgage having been discharged, there is nothing to redeem. This contention is devoid of merit. As already seen, the purchaser at a sale in execution of decree obtained by the first mortgagee in a suit, to which the second mortgagee was not a party, does not displace the latter but stands only in the position of the first mortgagee and in the sale, the interest of both of the first mortgagee and of the mortgagor passes to the auction purchaser subject to the rights of the puisne mortgagee to pay up the amount due under the first mortgage. Hence it is clear that the plaintiff can get decree for sale provided, she pays the amount due under the prior mortgage decree in O.S.No.1646 of 1979 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal. Further, the suit can be decreed with regard to the first defendant alone to pay the suit claim and the other defendants are not liable."

(xxxiii) Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.394/98 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai filed by the Sri Ram Chit and Investment (P) Limited as Plaintiff against the second Respondent/first Defendant. A cursory glance of Ex.A.7 plaint in O.S.No.394/78 (filed by the Sri Ram Chit and Investment (P) Limited) shows that the same company has prayed for passing of preliminary mortgage decree directing the second Respondent/first Defendant to pay the Plaintiff therein a sum of Rs.19,303.95/- with further interest of Rs.15,660/- with interest at 6% within a time stipulated by this Court and in default of the payment of the said sum, to pass a final decree for sale, directing the sale of the hypotheca - B schedule property and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decree amount and further to pass a personal decree against the second Respondent/first Defendant for payment of the balance due if any.

(Liv) In the instant case, though the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff strenuously contends that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to get the rights and benefits of a puisne mortgagee, it is to be pointed out that in the suit O.S.No.299 of 1992 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff the first mortgagee Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., Madras, has not been arrayed as one of the parties to the proceedings. It is not known as to why the Appellant/Plaintiff has not added the first mortgagee viz., Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., Madras in O.S.299 of 1992. The prior mortgagee/first mortgagee (Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., Madras) is not bound by the second mortgage created by the second and third Respondents/the Defendants 1 and 2 to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff on 05.03.1990. In Nansing V. Nathaji reported in AIR 1929 Nagpur at page 135, it is held that 'A prior mortgagee can be joined as party and when joined, he has a right to redeem the puisne mortgagee.' A prior mortgagee cannot redeem a second mortgagee. It is only on the principle redeem up and foreclose down. A prior mortgagee is not bound by the second mortgagee, as per the decision reported in AIR 1917 Madras, at page 751. Moreover, a transferee pendente lite is bound by the Decree or Order of a Court, as per the decision reported in AIR 1915 Nagpur at page 28.

(Lv) In the absence of the prior mortgagee/first mortgagee (Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., Madras) not being added as a party to the suit in O.S.No.299 of 1992 on the file of the trial Court and inasmuch as, the prior mortgagee (Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd.,) is not bound by the second mortgage created by the second and third Respondents/Defendants 1 and 2 to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff on 05.03.1990, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of Prudence, opines that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal mortgage sum of Rs.25,000/- from 05.03.1990 together with interest 12% per annum till date of realisation together with proportionate costs from the second and third Respondents/the Defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, it is held by this Court that the mortgage executed by deposit of Registration of Copy of Title Deeds and the Decree obtained in O.S.No.394 of 1978 and the subsequent E.P. Proceedings in E.P.No.318 of 1984 are binding on the Appellant/Plaintiff and further, the Registration copy of the sale deed executed by the Mortgagor long after losing all his interests in the property and contents therein can be looked into and relied upon to know about the contents and the nature of transaction in the said document, even without examining any witness in this regard for resolving the dispute/controversy and moreover, the confirmation of Auction sale on 09.10.1990, in the present case, the reverts back to the public Auction sale held on 23.09.1985 and it binds everyone including the third parties and accordingly, the Substantial Questions of Law 1 to 3 are so answered.