SACHIDANAND PRASAD versus BABU SHEO PRASAD SINGH

SACHIDANAND PRASAD versus BABU SHEO PRASAD SINGH

Section 90 and Illustration (c) do not apply where mortgagee's default on rent payment is trifling and not a real contributory cause of sale; the advantage gained is not due to his position or mala fide conduct. The sale extinguished mortgagors' right of redemption.

Parties
Appellant: Sachidanand Prasad; Respondent: Sheoprasad Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Patna High Court Judgment Dated February 19, 1958 in Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 919 of 1954
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Usufructuary Mortgage, Redemption, Rent Sale, Certificate Sale, Section 90 Indian Trusts Act, Transfer of Property Act
Property Law Usufructuary Mortgage Redemption Rent Sale Certificate Sale Section 90 Indian Trusts Act Transfer of Property Act

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sachidanand Prasad

Appellant

Sheoprasad Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Patna High Court Judgment Dated February 19, 1958 in Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 919 of 1954

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchases at rent sale/certificate sale by the mortgagee in the farzi name enure to the benefit of mortgagors as per s. 90 Indian Trusts Act and Illustration (c), enabling redemption of the entire property
  2. 2 Whether trifling default by mortgagee on rent payment can make s. 90 applicable

Ratio Decidendi

Section 90 and Illustration (c) do not apply where mortgagee's default on rent payment is trifling and not a real contributory cause of sale; the advantage gained is not due to his position or mala fide conduct. The sale extinguished mortgagors' right of redemption.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Decree for redemption of 3.93 acres of plot No. 955 in Hichapur maintained as affirmed by High Court; suit otherwise dismissed.