Property Law
M.C. Chaganlal Sowcar v. P. Anantaraman
AIR 1961 Mad 415
- Citation
- AIR 1961 Mad 415
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date
- 21 November 1960
- Bench
- Madras High Court Bench
Facts
- A possessory mortgage was created to secure a principal sum of ₹2,000.
- Rent from the mortgaged house was to be adjusted towards interest.
- If rent was insufficient, the mortgagors were personally liable for the deficit.
- They also undertook to pay taxes and repair expenses.
- The deed permitted the mortgagee to recover all amounts due from:
- the mortgagors personally;
- the mortgaged property; and
- their other property.
- A purchaser of the equity of redemption offered only the principal sum of ₹2,000.
- The mortgagee demanded unpaid interest and other secured expenses as a condition of redemption.
Issue
- Whether “mortgage money” included unpaid interest and other amounts secured by the deed.
- Whether the mortgagor could redeem by paying only the original principal.
Rule
- Under Sections 58 and 60 TPA, redemption requires payment or tender of the mortgage money.
- Mortgage money includes:
- principal; and
- interest or other sums whose payment is secured by the mortgage.
- In the absence of a contract to the contrary, interest stipulated in a mortgage is ordinarily charged upon the mortgaged property.
- A personal covenant to pay does not necessarily exclude a simultaneous proprietary security.
Application
- The deed contemplated that rent would normally discharge interest.
- This explained why one clause referred to repayment of principal when possession was returned.
- That clause could not be read in isolation.
- The deed expressly authorised recovery of the whole “amount due” from the mortgaged property.
- It therefore created both:
- personal liability; and
- security over the property.
- If the rent failed to cover interest, the unpaid balance remained secured.
- Taxes and repair expenses paid by the mortgagee were also recoverable where the deed so provided.
- The purchaser of the equity of redemption stepped into the mortgagor’s position and could not demand release of the property without satisfying the entire secured liability.
- The amount due therefore had to be calculated before a redemption decree could be passed.
Conclusion
- Interest and other secured amounts formed part of the mortgage money.
- Redemption could not be obtained merely by paying ₹2,000.
- The matter was remanded to calculate the full amount due.
- The mortgagee was entitled to retain the security until that sum was paid.