Property lawMortgageSupreme Court of India

Narandas Karsondas v SA Kamtam

AIR 1977 Supreme Court 77419771 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Mortgagor failed to redeem for over 40 years. Mortgagee claimed ownership by long possession, arguing the right of redemption was extinguished by passage of time. No foreclosure decree had ever been obtained.
Issue
Whether the right of redemption is extinguished by mere lapse of time without a foreclosure decree or court sale.
Held
Without a decree of foreclosure or court sale, the mortgagee remains a mortgagee regardless of duration of possession. The mortgagor's right to redeem survives unless limitation (Art. 61: 30 years) is specifically pleaded and proved.
Principle
Right of redemption subsists until extinguished by foreclosure decree, court sale, or limitation; mere passage of time does not destroy it
Cite this

Facts

  • Mortgagor failed to redeem for over 40 years
  • Mortgagee claimed ownership by long possession, arguing the right of redemption was extinguished by passage of time
  • No foreclosure decree had ever been obtained

Issue

  1. Whether the right of redemption is extinguished by mere lapse of time without a foreclosure decree or court sale.

Held

  • Without a decree of foreclosure or court sale, the mortgagee remains a mortgagee regardless of duration of possession. The mortgagor's right to redeem survives unless limitation (Art. 61: 30 years) is specifically pleaded and proved.

Ratio decidendi

"Once a mortgage, always a mortgage." The right of redemption is extinguished only by: (a) act of parties (valid release), (b) decree of court (foreclosure/sale), or (c) statutory limitation. Mere passage of time, without invoking limitation as a defence, does not convert the mortgagee into an owner.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Use in questions on right of redemption (S.60), clog on redemption, or mortgagee's claim of ownership by long possession. Key line: "Without a foreclosure decree, the mortgagee remains a mortgagee regardless of duration of possession."

Cite this

Citation

Narandas Karsondas v SA Kamtam AIR 1977 Supreme Court 774

Reported: AIR 1977 Supreme Court 774. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.