Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was held by a Bench decision of the Court presided over by B.K. Mukherjea, J., in Taran Roy v. Shyam Mondal, AIR 1942 Cal 226 that the mortgagor could not do so and if a mortgagor releases part of the security and proceeds against the other part, he can only get a decree for a proportionate amount. Having heard arguments of the parties, with respect to Mukherjea, J., we were unable to accept the principles of law laid down in that decision. Before the said Division Bench a Privy Council decision, Shah Ramchand v. Pandit Parbhu Dayal, 69 Ind App 98 = (AIR 1942 PC 50), was placed where the Judicial Committee held that in a suit for redemption, it is not open to the mortgagor to claim partial redemption and that the mortgage debt was one and indivisible. The Privy Council has, however, doubted whether a mortgagee can be affected by releasing part of a security and whether the views taken by the Calcutta High Court in several decisions are correct. At that stage, we were of the view that if the mortgage debt was only one and indivisible debt which could be realized from every part of the security then there was no reason why it was not open to the mortgagee to enforce the whole debt against a part of the security only. Since this view was not in consonance with the Bench decision in Taran Roy v. Shyam Mondal, (AIR 1942 Cal 226) (supra), the matter was referred to the Full Bench for a final decision on the said point. The reference is not limited to a specific question only as it is sometimes done but the entire appeal has been referred to us for its final disposal.