GOPALAN KRISHNAN KUTTY versus KUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA & ORS.

GOPALAN KRISHNAN KUTTY versus KUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA & ORS.

There is no automatic merger or surrender of lease by the lessee upon creation of a mortgage in his favour unless proved by evidence; therefore, upon redemption of the mortgage, the mortgagor is not entitled to recover possession unless surrender of lease is evidenced. The defendant’s right to continue as lessee subsists in absence of such proof.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Gopalan Krishnan Kutty; Respondents/plaintiffs: Kunjamma Pillai Sarojini Amma & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Usufructuary Mortgage, Merger of Interest, Surrender of Lease, Redemption of Mortgage, Possession of Mortgaged Property
Property Law Usufructuary Mortgage Merger of Interest Surrender of Lease Redemption of Mortgage Possession of Mortgaged Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gopalan Krishnan Kutty

Appellant/defendant

Kunjamma Pillai Sarojini Amma & Ors.

Respondents/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was surrender of lease by the lessee-defendant at the time of execution of the mortgage by the lessor-plaintiff in his favour?
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the leased premises on redemption of mortgage in absence of proof of surrender?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no automatic merger or surrender of lease by the lessee upon creation of a mortgage in his favour unless proved by evidence; therefore, upon redemption of the mortgage, the mortgagor is not entitled to recover possession unless surrender of lease is evidenced. The defendant’s right to continue as lessee subsists in absence of such proof.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Judgments and decrees of the courts below, to the extent they directed restoration of possession by the defendant to the plaintiff, are set aside.
  • Defendant-appellant entitled to costs throughout from the plaintiff-respondents.