P.T.Mathai vs The South Indian Bank Ltd
10. On a consideration of the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act, in particular Section 60 thereof, the decisions of the
Privy Council in Mirza Yadalli Beg v. Tukaram and another [AIR
1921 PC 125] and Shah Ram Chand v. Pandit Parbhu Dayal and
others [AIR (29) 1942 PC 50], and the decisions of this Court in
Frenchikkose Thommi and others v. Chacko Devasia and others
[AIR 1963 Kerala 75] and Mathevan Sankaran v. Narayanan
Narayanan and others [1993 (2) KLJ 1065, the general principles
that can be culled out are that, the owner of the equity of redemption
of one of two estates, comprised in a single mortgage, cannot insist on
redeeming that estate separately. He cannot also be compelled to
redeem it separately, as his right is essentially to redeem the whole,
subject to the equities of the other persons interested. It is also
apparent that the character of indivisibility of a mortgage exists, not
only with reference to the mortgagee, but also with reference to the
mortgagor. If a mortgagor transfers his rights over a mortgaged
property, the transferee of a portion of the equity of redemption is
entitled to redeem the mortgage in its entirety, subject only to the
O.P.(DRT).No.97/2014 14
safeguarding of the equal title to redeem of any other person who has
a right of redemption. As a corollary, he cannot compel the mortgagee
to allow him to redeem his part by itself. Section 60 of the Transfer of
Property Act does not state that one of several mortgagors cannot
redeem more than his share, unless the owners of the other shares
consent or do not object. It only states that one of several mortgagors
cannot insist on the mortgagee permitting him to redeem his share
alone, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining
due on the mortgage, except in situations where the mortgagee(s)
have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.