28 August 2018
Supreme Court
Download

BIR SINGH Vs RAM KANWAR SINGH(D) TH. LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
Judgment by: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-008994-008994 / 2018
Diary number: 35724 / 2013
Advocates: VINAY GARG Vs


1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 8994  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.37997 of 2013)

BIR SINGH                                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

RAM KANWAR SINGH(D) TH. LRS  & ORS.                Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant claims through the original mortgagee under

the  usufructuary  mortgage.   The  appellant-mortgagee  filed  a

suit  claiming  ownership  of  the  property  in-question  by

prescription and also sought for permanent injunction in favour

of the appellant.  The trial court decreed the suit and granted

permanent injunction.  On appeal, the first appellate court

partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant, claiming

through the mortgagee, cannot claim right to ownership over the

property  in-question.   However,  the  first  appellate  court

affirmed the permanent injunction in favour of the appellant in

the capacity of the appellant as a mortgagee.  The same view

was  affirmed  by  the  High  Court.   However,  the  High  Court

granted liberty to the respondents to work out their remedy for

right to redemption in separate proceedings.  While doing so

the High Court affirmed the grant of injunction in favour of

the appellant.

2

2

3. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the

appellant, being the mortgagee, can claim grant of ownership by

contending that the right of morgagor has been foreclosed.

4. This issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court

in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and

Others,  (2014)  9  SCC  185  where  this  Court  held  that  “A

usufructuary  mortgagee  is  not  entitled  to  file  a  suit  for

declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of

30 years from the date of the mortgage”.

5. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.

   

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (VINEET SARAN)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 28, 2018.