A.B. Govardhan vs P. Ragothaman

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

29 August 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No(s). 9975-9976 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1002 : 2024 INSC 640

Acts & Sections

TP Act

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly held the agreement to be a mortgage in view of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Headnote

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellantplaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent produced title document of his property as security towards debt and agreed to register the Sale Deed as and when demanded – However, later neither the respondent executed the Sale Deed nor paid the balance sum – Agreement, if was a mortgage – Whether the respondent by way of the agreement created a equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds: Held: Yes – There was no redemption of this mortgage – Division Bench erred in holding that the plaint averments did not conclude that there was a valid mortgage entitling the appellant-plaintiff to sue for a mortgage decree – Single Judge correctly held the agreement to be a mortgage in view of s.58(f) of the 1882 Act – Respondent admitted execution of the agreement (Exhibit P-1) however, claimed coercion but led no evidence to support this plea – Further, the agreement only recorded what had happened and did not create/extinguish rights/liabilities and therefore covered by para 14.3 of Narvir Singh and did not require registration – Impugned orders set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge restored with modification. [Paras 22, 29, 33] Pleadings – Evidence – Every fact pleaded has to be substantiated:

Held: For every pleaded fact, there has to be evidence, oral or documentary, to substantiate the same – A bald averment or mere statement by a defendant bereft of evidentiary material to back up such averment/statement takes such defendant’s case nowhere. [Para 24]

Delay – Condonation – Liberal approach – Discussed.

Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior counsel for the respondent. 2. Leave granted. The pending applications shall be dealt with in the final pages of this judgment. 3. The present appeals germinate from the: 3.1. Final Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “First Impugned Order”)1 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Original Side Appeal2 No.189 of 2011, whereby the appeal filed by the r

View Subscription Plans →