III

SEMEST
ER [CONCEPT OF
JAMIA MILLIA
MORTGAGE]
ISLAMIA

SUBMITTED TO-PROF. QAZI

MOHAMMAD
USMAN
JAVED MALIK

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882

PRELIMINARY
l. Short title
This Act may be called the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Commencement: It shall come into force on the first day of July, 1882.
Extent: It extends in the first instance to the whole of India except the
territories which,
immediately before the lst November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States
or in the States of
Bombay, Punjab and Delhi.
But this Act or any part thereof may by notification in the Official Gazette
be extended to the
whole or any part of the said territories by the State Government concerned.
And any State Government may from time to time, by notification in the
Official Gazette, exempt,
either retrospectively or prospectively, any part of the territories
administered by such State
Government from all or any of the following provisions, namely,Section 54, paragraph 2 and sections 3, 59, 107 and 123.
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing part of this section, section 54,
paragraphs 2 and 3,
and sections 59, 107 and 123 shall not extend or be extended to any district
or tract of country for
the time being excluded from the operation of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 (XVI of 1908),
under the power conferred by the first section of that Act or otherwise
1

THE ACT
A Bill, finally presented to the Legislative Council, became a law on the
17th of February 1882 and came into force from 1st July of the same year.
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mainly deals with transfer of immovable
property. It does not apply to transfers by the operation of law such as
transfer of immovable property necessitated by Order of Court for
insolvency or forfeiture among others. The 137 sections contained within
have been divided into 8 chapters.
Interestingly, nowhere does the Act define What is a transfer of property.
But it does define transfer as a standalone in Section 5.
OBJECTIVES
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the T P Act,
1882) was intended to define and amend the existing laws and not to
introduce any new principle. It applies only to voluntary transfers. The
following may be enumerated as the objectives of the Act:
a)

As per the preamble of the Act, the T P Act, 1882 is to amend or

regulate the law relating to transfer of property by the acts of the parties.
b)

The Act provides a clear, systematic and uniform law for the transfer

of immovable property.
c)

The Act completes the Code of Contract since it is an enacted law for

transfers that take place in furtherance of a contract.

d)

With provision for inter-vivos transfers, the T P Act, 1882 provides a

law parallel to the existing laws of testamentary and intestate transfers.

e)

The Act is not exhaustive and provides scope to apply the principles of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience if a particular case is not governed by

any provision of law.
The Transfer of Property Act 1882 is an Indian legislation which regulates
the transfer of property in India. It contains specific provisions regarding
what constitutes transfer and the conditions attached to it. According to the
Act, 'transfer of property' means an act by which a person conveys property
to one or more persons, or himself and one or more other persons. The act of
transfer may be done in present or for future. The person may include an
individual, company or association or body of individuals, and any kind of
property may be transferred. includes transfer of Immovable Property.
A comprehensive definition of Immovable Property is not given in the
Transfer of Property Act Section 3, the Interpretation of the Act, says
"Immovable property does not includes standing timber, growing crops or
grass".Section 3(26), The General Clauses Act, 1897, defines, " immovable
property" shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached
to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.
Also,The Registration Act,1908, 2(6) "immovable property" includes land,
buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or
any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth, but not
standing timber, growing crops nor grass.
A transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which
the transferor is then capable of passing in the property, unless a different
intention is expressed or implied.

According to Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, in case a

person either fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to
transfer certain immovable property and does some acts to transfer such
property for consideration, then such a transfer will continue to operate in
future. It will operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in
such property .
This will be at the option of the transferee and can be done during the time
during which the contract of transfer exists. As per this rule, the rights of
bona fide transferee, who has no notice of the earlier transfer or of the
option, are protected. This rule embodies a rule of estoppel i.e. a person who
makes a representation cannot later on go against it.
Every person, who is competent to contract, is competent to transfer
property, which can be transferred in whole or in part. He should be entitled
to the transferable property, or authorised to dispose off transferable property
which is not his own. The right may be either absolute or conditional, and
the property may be movable or immovable, present or future. Such a
transfer can be made orally, unless a transfer in writing is specifically
required under any law.
According to Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property of any kind
may be transferred. The person insisting non-transferability must prove the
existence of some law or custom which restricts the right of transfer. Unless
there is some legal restriction preventing the transfer, the owner of the
property may transfer it. However, in some cases there may be transfer of
property by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in such
property.
In case the property is transferred subject to the condition which absolutely
restrains the transferee from parting with or disposing of his interest in the
4

property, the condition is void. The only exception is in the case of a lease
where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under
him. Generally, only the person having interest in the property is authorised
to transfer his interest in the property and can pass on the proper title to any
other person The rights of the transferees will not be adversely affected,
provided: they acted in good faith; the property was acquired for
consideration ; and the transferees had acted without notice of the defect in
title of the transferor.
It should be noted that these conditions must be satisfied :
There must be a representation by the transferor that he has authority to
transfer the immovable property. The representation should be either
fraudulent or erroneous. The transferee must act on the representation in
good faith. The transfer should be done for a consideration. The transferor
should subsequently acquire some interest in the property he had agreed to
transfer. The transferee may have the option to acquire the interest which the
transferor subsequently acquires.
SCOPE
Since the T P Act, 1882 is not a complete code of transfer of property; we
can say its scope is limited. The Act does not apply to all the transfers taking
place in India.
a)

Limitation on Transfer: The Act applies to transfer by the act of parties

and not by application of law. Thus, its operations are limited to transfers by
act of parties only except in a few cases saved by Section 2 of the Act.
b)

Not Exhaustive: There are various kinds of property and various

modes of transfer of property. The Act does not incorporate rules for all

modes of transfer in existence. The Act does not even claim to be a complete
code as apparent from omission of the term consolidate from its Preamble.
c)

Transfer of Immovable Property: The Act mainly deals with transfer of

immovable properties only.

d)

Exemption of Muslim Law: In case of a conflict between the T P Act,

1882 and rules of Muslim Law, the latter will prevail. Section 2 of the Act
does not affect inconsistent rules of Muslim Law. Thus, a settlement made in
perpetuity for the benefit of descendants of the settler is a valid wakf
(charitable gift) wherein there is an ultimate gift in favor of a charity.
e)

Exemption of Rights and Incidents: Certain incidents of a contract or

the essential nature of property are exemption from the operation of the Act
by
Section 2. The Act also saves certain property rights. For example, the right
to partition of immovable property is an incident of property but this right is
not affected by the provisions of the T P Act, 1882.

INTRODUCTION.
The concept of mortgage has its foundation on the English Common Law
principle Once a mortgage, always a mortgage. The idea behind this
principle is that in a transaction of mortgage, the transferor (here Mortgagor)
transfers one of all his interests in his immovable property to the transferee
(Mortgagee). The Mortgagor, even after transferring one of his interests in
the immovable property, retains some interests with him. These remaining
interests entitle him to redeem his immovable property after the repayment
of the debt for which his property was kept as a security.
The Mortgagor, generally, keeps his immovable property as a security,
in the urgent need of money. His intention is not to sell his property after
taking the money from the Mortgagee. This being, a fundamental
consideration of equity, in England as well as in India, the rule once a
mortgage always a mortgage has been recognized, in the transactions of
mortgage. There is plethora of cases that point to the acceptability of this
rule in India.

TRANSACTION OF MORTGAGE.
Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as the
Act) defines the contract of mortgage in following words:
58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money"
and "mortgage-deed" defined
(a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable
property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced
or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the
performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary
liability.
The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee;
the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the
time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any)
by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed.
In the words of Mahmood J.1, mortgage as understood in this country can
not be defined better than by the definition of adopted by the Legislature in
Sec. 58 of the Transfer of Property act.
Dwelling upon the definition and the provision of mortgage, under this
section, following essentials of a mortgage transaction can be drawn:
1. Transfer of interest. A transaction of mortgage involves the transfer
of an interest from the mortgagor to the mortgagee. On this point this
differs from sale because in sale, on the contrary, there is complete
transfer of all the interests in the property. The mortgage is transfer of
interest less than ownership.

Gopal v. Parsotam, (1883) 5 All 121 (137) (FB).

2. Specific immovable property. The interest transferred is that of a

specific immovable property. The property, which has to be
mortgaged, must be defined specifically and not in general terms. The
property must also be immovable property.
3. Securing the payment of debt. The transaction involves the transfer of
an interest for the purpose of securing the payment of a debt, which is
in the nature of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an
existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which
may give rise to a pecuniary liability.
The debt in lieu of the mortgaged property constitutes the
consideration of the mortgage. The mortgagor may also execute the
mortgage deed before he gets the full amount from the mortgagor.
Mere ground that the mortgagee did not advance the money on the
date of execution of the deed does not render the transaction of
mortgage ineffective2.
The transaction of mortgage involves the right of the mortgagor to redeem
his immovable property, kept as a security by him. The intention is not to
sell his property. It is mere an urgency of money, that makes the Mortgagor
keep his property as a security for the repayment of his debt.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION.
Section 60 of the Act lays down the provision of the redemption of the
mortgaged property in following words:
60. Right of mortgagor to redeem
At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor
has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the
2

State of Kerala v. Cochin Chemical Refineries, AIR 1968 SC 67.

mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the

mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the
mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the
mortgagee, (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged
property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the
cost the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him
or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the
mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have
registered an acknowledgement in writing that any right in derogation
of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished:
Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been
extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a court.
The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a
suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any
provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the
principal money has been allowed to pass or no such time has been
fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before
payment or tender of such money.
The right of redemption of the mortgaged property is one of several rights
that are vested in the mortgagor. Right to redeem is the right to recover
something by making certain payments. In case of the mortgage,
mortgagors right to redeem is called his right to recover or get back the
property, after he repays the loan.
Dwelling upon the provision of section 60 of the Act, the subject
matter of the right of redemption can described as that right of the
mortgagor, or of any third person directed by him, which entitles him to get
back the possession of the mortgaged property after the payment of the
mortgaged money

10

However, if the above stated rights have been extinguished by the act
of the parties or by a decree of the court, they can not be exercised.
The right granted under this section is called the right of redemption
and the suit for its enforcement is called the suit of redemption. The
mortgagee has the right to get a reasonable notice before payment or tender
of such money.
It is the most important right of the mortgagor, through which, the
mortgagor after paying-off the money becomes entitle to get back the
property. At any time after the mortgage- money has become due, the
mortgagor has a right on the payment of the mortgage-money to require the
mortgagee to reconvey the mortgaged property to him. This right of the
mortgagor, through which he is entitled to get the property returned to him,
contemporaneously with the discharge of his obligation, is called the right of
redemption.
POSITION IN THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT.
Unlike England, the Act does not distinguish between the right to redeem
and equity of redemption. In England, this right was evolved by the
Chancery Courts and was known as equity of redemption. On the following
counts, the mortgagors right to redeem can be justified:
1. Transfer of an interest. In a mortgage, the mortgagor transfers one of all
his interests in the immovable property. The mortgagor transfers only an
interest in favour of mortgagee and not the whole interest in the property.
2. Residuary ownership. After creating an interest in favour of mortgagee,
the mortgagor still has the remaining interest. The remaining interest is
called the residuary ownership of the mortgagor in the mortgage-

11

property. It is the residuary ownership, by virtue of which, the mortgagor

has the right to redemption vested in him.
3. Purpose is only securing the payment of debt. As per the provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act, in the transaction of mortgage, since there is
a transfer of an interest of the immovable property by the mortgagor for
securing the loan, he is entitled to get back that interest on the repayment
of the loan. By making the payment of the loan with its interest, the
mortgagor becomes entitled to redeem, that is call back the interest
given to the mortgagee as security for repayment.
4. Principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Mortgagor neither
intends nor desires that the property should go absolutely to mortgagee.
Therefore if the mortgagee is unable to repay the debt on a fixed date and
there is some delay, the law must extend his right to redemption upto a
reasonable time. Principles of equity, justice and good conscience do not
allow that a transaction which is of borrowing nature should become an
absolute conveyance, only on the ground that the debt was not paid on
the fixed date. It is therefore, an inherent right of every mortgagor, laid
down in sec. 60, irrespective of the kind of mortgage.
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.
The right of redemption of the mortgagor under sec. 60 of the Transfer of
Property Act is based on the equity of redemption under English law.
In England, the mortgagors right of redemption was introduced by
the Chancery Courts, also known as the Courts of Equity. The mortgagors
right to redeem the mortgage by making payment, even after the due date is
known as equity of redemption. The Chancery Court introduced this right in
order to do justice with cases on mortgage decided under the common law.
12

Prior position at Common Law.

At common law, the mortgage was the transfer of legal estate (absolute
interest), subject to a condition. The condition was non-payment of loan
upto fixed date, which if fulfilled, the mortgaged property belonged
absolutely to the mortgagee. Common law treated the non-payment of debt
upto a specified period as penalty for the mortgagor. The common law gave
no relief to the mortgagor, who failed to repay the debt upto the specified
period, even though he was ready to repay within few days after the
specified period. Thus, in default of the repayment the mortgagor lost all his
rights in his immovable property.
This situation was exploited by the money-lenders, by not accepting
the money on the due date. They knew that if somehow the loan with interest
remained unpaid upto the fixed date, they will become owner of the property
in lieu of the small sum of money, which the debtor took in his urgent need.
Role of Chancery Courts.
Soon the Chancery Courts realized that the main purpose of the mortgage is
to keep the property as a security to the money-lender for the repayment of
money. Therefore, the money-lender should not be given any legal right to
hold on the property absolutely if the mortgagor was ready to repay the debt
within reasonable time after the expiry of the due date. Thus, the right which
was denied by the Common Law was given to the mortgagor by the Courts
of Equity. This right of the mortgagor to redeem even if he was in default
was known as equity of redemption.
Thus, this very principle evolved by the Chancery Courts went against
the common law. Equity started with the notion that stipulation as to time
13

(fixed date for repayment) should not be treated as penalty. The Courts even
held it to be the essential character of every mortgage. They provided further
that it was an important right of the mortgagor and it could not be denied in
any manner, not even express agreement of the parties themselves. Equity
declared that once a mortgage, always a mortgage.
ONCE A MORTGAGE ALWAYS A MORTGAGE.
This maxim implies that the mortgagors right of redemption would not be
defeated by any agreement to the contrary, even if the mortgagor himself has
agreed to it. The maxim simply denied the validity of any stipulation in the
mortgage deed, which defeats the mortgagors right of redemption. In other
word, a transaction, which at one time is mortgage, could not cease to be so
by having any stipulation in the mortgage deed intended to defeat the
mortgagors right of redemption.
The underlying principle of this maxim was stated by LORD
HENLEY in following words:
This Court as a Conscience is very jealous of persons taking
securities for a loan and converting such securities into purchases.
And therefore I take it to be an established rule, that a mortgagee can
never provide at the time of making the loan for any event or
condition on which the equity of redemption shall be discharged and
the conveyance made absolute. And there is great reason and justice in
this rule for necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men, but to
answer present exigency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may
impose upon them3.
3

Vernon v. Bethell, (1762) 1 Eden 113; available in R. K. Sinhas The Transfer of Property Act, 9 th ed., p.
289.

14

CLOG ON REDEMPTION.
The right of redemption continues although the mortgagor fails to pay the
debt at the due date. Any provision inserted in the mortgage-deed which has
the effect of preventing or impeding this right is void as a clog on
redemption. This view was substantiated by LINDLEY M. R. in Stanley v.
Wilde4.
The Supreme Court considered this rule in Murarilal v. Devkaran5,
where the clause incorporated in the mortgage deed provided that the
amount due under the mortgage should be paid within 15 years whereupon
the property would be redeemed. Further it provided that in case payment
was not made within that period, mortgagee would become the owner of the
property. The Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court, held that any stipulation contained in the mortgage deed, which
unreasonably restrained the mortgagors equity of redemption can be
ignored by the courtsubject to the general law of limitation prescribed in that
behalf.
a) Long Term for Redemption. It is not necessarily true that a long term
for redemption is always a clog on redemption. However, if the length
of the term is found to be oppressive, redemption would be allowed
before the expiry of that period. A period of 90 years for redemption
has been held to be unreasonable and a clog on redemption 6. A period

(1899) 2 Ch 474.
AIR 1965 SC 225.
6
Fateh Mohd. v. Ram Dayal, 2 Luck 588.
5

15

of 90 years for redemption has not been held to be a clog on

redemption7.
b) Condition of Sale in Default. A condition in the deed that has the
effect of converting a mortgage into a sale is invalid as a clog on
redemption. such condition converts a mortgage into a sale. Equity
disfavours a mortgage to be converted into a sale. It is therefore void.
In Gulab Chand Sharma v. Saraswati Devi8, there was a mortgage by
conditional sale. The mortgagor was given a time of four years for
repayment of the debt. The mortgage property was on lease. The deed
contained a stipulation that in case the mortgagee receives any notice
from any public authority for breach of covenants of lease within four
years term, the mortgagee shall become owner of the property. The
apex court held this stipulation to be a clog on mortgagors right of
redemption and therefore not to be enforced.
But after the execution of the deed, the parties agree to the sale
of the property that does not amount to be a clog on the redemption.
c) Condition Postponing Redemption in Default on a Certain Date.
The condition or stipulation that postpones the mortgagors right of
redemption in case of default of payment on a certain date, is regarded
a clog on redemption as it bars or restricts the redemption. In Mohd.
Sher Khan v. Seth Swami Dayal9, the mortgage was for a term of five
years. A stipulation in deed said that if the mortgagor failed to pay the
money, the mortgagee was entitled to take possession of the property
for next 12 years, during which the mortgage could not be redeemed.
7

Massa Singh v. Gopal Singh, AIR 1983 P&H 437.

AIR (1977) SC 242.
9
AIR (1922) PC 17.
8

16

The Privy Council held the stipulation to be a clog on redemption for

it hindered the right of redemption.
d) Restraint on Alienation. A condition, which restraints the mortgagor
from transferring mortgage-property is a clog. In a mortgage, the
mortgagor only transfers an interest in the property and still has
residuary ownership. Hs has every right to transfer the property by
sale, gift etc and can even, effect another mortgage.
e) Collateral benefits to Mortgagee. Collateral benefits to mortgagee are
not necessarily clog on the redemption. In order to establish that the
collateral benefits are clog on the redemption it is necessary that:
a. The collateral benefits given to the mortgagee are unfair and
unconscionable, and
b. The collateral benefits to mortgagee are part of the transaction
of mortgage and not an independent benefit.
In Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Company
Ltd.10, there was an agreement dated 24 August 1910, whereby a firm
of wool brokers agreed to lend to a company carrying on the business
of meat preservers a sum of 10,000 at 6 per cent. The deed further
provided that if the interest was punctually paid the loan was not to be
called in until 30 September 1915, but the company, might pay off at
any time on giving one calendar month's notice. The loan was secured
by a floating charge on the undertaking of the company. The
agreement provided that for a period of five years from the date
thereof the company should not sell sheepskins to any person other
than the lenders so long as the latter were willing to buy at the best
price offered by any other person and that the company should pay to
10

(1914) AC 25.

17

the lenders a commission on all sheepskins sold by the company to

any other person. The loan having been paid off by the company in
January 1913, in accordance with the agreement, the lenders claimed
to exercise their option of pre-emption notwithstanding the payment
off of the loan. The House of Lords held the stipulation for the option
of pre-emption formed no part of the mortgage transaction, but was a
collateral contract entered into as a condition of the company
obtaining the loan. It was not a clog on the equity of redemption or
repugnant to the right to redeem and the lenders were entitled to an
injunction restraining the company from selling sheepskins to any
person other than the lenders in breach of the agreement.
f) Penalty in Case of Default. An agreement which amounts to penalty
in case of non-payment of debt is a clog on redemption.

CASES ON EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.

In Seth Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal and Ors 11, it was admitted that the
transaction was that of a mortgage and Section 60 of the Transfer of
Property Act was applicable. The Court held that therein the term of
mortgage was 85 years and there existed no stipulation entitling the
mortgagor to redeem during that term which had not expired. The document
in question was held by this Court to be containing a stipulation creating a
clog on the equity of redemption which was found to be illegal.
11

1959 SCR 509.

18

In Pomal Kanji Govindji and Ors. v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit and Ors. 12,
the Court held that whether a clause used in a transaction of mortgage
amounted to clog on the equity of redemption is a mixed question of law and
fact. In that case, there existed a provision for payment of interest at the rate
of half per cent per annum payable on the principal amount at the end of the
long period which led the Court to conclude that there was a clog on equity
of redemption. Furthermore, in that case, materials were brought on record
to show that the transaction was entered into by way of security for the loan
obtained.
In Shivdev Singh and Anr. v. Sucha Singh and Anr.13, the Court was dealing
with a case of anomalous mortgage. Therein the mortgage was to remain
operative for a period of 99 years. It was in that situation, this Court opined
that the original owner having been in great financial difficulty, the
mortgagees took advantage of the said fact and incorporated a 99 year's term
which constituted a clog on the equity of redemption.
In M.R. Satwaji Rao (D) by L.Rs. vs. B. Shama Rao (Dead) by L.Rs. and
Ors.14, the facts were that on 19.2.1948, the plaintiffs predecessor executed
a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondents for a sum of Rs.
10,000. The terms of the said mortgage deed were that the mortgagee shall
remain in possession of the mortgaged property without paying rent and that
the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000 shall carry no interest. The period of
redemption was five years from the date of mortgage. However, the
mortgagors continued in possession of the mortgaged property as tenants of
12

MANU/SC/0372/1988.
MANU/SC/0230/2000.
14
MANU/SC/7478/2008.
13

19

the mortgagee on a monthly rent of Rs. 97.50. As the mortgagors failed to

pay the rent, on 19.5.1952, the mortgagee filed suit before the Ist Munsif,
Bangalore for arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed. In pursuance of the
said decree, the property was put on auction sale by the executing Court.
Mortgagee being the highest bidder purchased the schedule property in court
auction. Sale was confirmed. The mortgagors neither objected for the sale
nor confirmed the sale or take any steps to set aside the sale over three
decades.
On 18.2.1983, the plaintiffs/respondents (mortgagors), after nearly
three decades, filed a suit before Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a
decree of redemption of the mortgage of the suit schedule property sold in
public auction as long back as on 11.9.1952. The Civil Judge, after
considering both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with
costs on 31.7.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs filed an appeal
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal decreeing the suit
for redemption. Against the impugned judgment of the High Court, the
defendants filed the present appeal by way of special leave before the
Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the decision of the High Court.

CONCLUSION.
The equity of redemption has been well recognized in Common Law as well
as in the Indian statutes. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
20

1882, explicitly substantiate this principle. In the Indian scenario, various

conditions have been discussed, whereby the stipulations in the mortgage
deed have turned to be the clog on the equity of redemption.
The equity of redemption can be brought to an end either by the act of
parties or by a decree of the court.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Text books.

21

1. Sarathi, Vepa P., Law of Transfer of Property, 5th ed., 2005, Eastern
Book Company, Lucknow.
2. Saxena, Poonam Pradhan, Property Law, 2006, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, New Delhi
3. Sinha R.K., The Transfer of Property Act, 4th edition 1999, Central
Law Agency.
4. Singh, Dr. Avtar, Textbook On The Transfer Of Property Act, 2008,
Universal Law Publishing Co.
Statues.
1. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Internet sources.
1. www.manupatra.com

22