RSA No.1671 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 212 Kundan Singh Joginder Singh and others 2. COCP Kundan Singh and another Joginder Singh CORAM: Present: AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. This order of mine shall dispose 2000 and COCP No.2542 of 2015 appellants-defendants vide judgments and decrees dated 31.03.1999 and 19.01.2000 passed by the learned trial Court a the suit for possession by way of redemption No.1-plaintiff judgment and decree by the appellants dismissed. The latter has been filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for imposing 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. Reserved on: Pronounced on Kundan Singh and others Vs Joginder Singh and others COCP No.2542 of 2015 (O&M) Kundan Singh and another Vs Joginder Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Saanchi Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.1671 of 2000 and for the petitioners in COCP No.2542 of 2015. Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate the respondents. -.- AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. This order of mine shall dispose of 2000 and COCP No.2542 of 2015. The former is preferred by the defendants No.1 to 4 against the concurrent finding rendered vide judgments and decrees dated 31.03.1999 and 19.01.2000 passed by the learned trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court respectively whereby the suit for possession by way of redemption plaintiff was decreed and the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree by the appellants- The latter has been filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for imposing IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1671 of 2000 (O&M) Reserved on:06.08.2025 Pronounced on:12.08.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Saanchi Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.1671 of 2000 and for the petitioners in COCP No.2542 of 2015. Sanwal, Advocate two cases i.e. RSA No.1671 of . The former is preferred by the against the concurrent finding rendered vide judgments and decrees dated 31.03.1999 and 19.01.2000 passed by the Appellate Court respectively whereby the suit for possession by way of redemption filed by contesting respondent was decreed and the appeal preferred against the aforesaid -defendants No.1 to 4, stood The latter has been filed by the petitioners-defendants No.1 to 4 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for imposing cases i.e. RSA No.1671 of . The former is preferred by the against the concurrent finding rendered vide judgments and decrees dated 31.03.1999 and 19.01.2000 passed by the Appellate Court respectively whereby filed by contesting respondent was decreed and the appeal preferred against the aforesaid , stood No.1 to 4 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for imposing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 appropriate punishment on the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 27.04.2000 (An passed by this Court in aforementioned regular second appeal. of brevity, facts are being enumerated from RSA No. 2. Succinctly, the facts are that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh sons of Ganga Singh and Smt. Keso widow of Ganga Singh were owners in possession of the land in dispute mentioned in the head and they mortgaged the same with defendants No.1 to 4, who are appellants before this Court, on 10.06.1975 and executed a mor in their favour for a period of 14 years i.e. upto 10.06.1989. Harbans Singh mortgagor, inherited by defendant No. before this Court) and his sister legal heirs are defendants No.11 to 13 ( before this Court). inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh (proforma Singh alias Jaswant Singh and his widow Smt. Mayo and out of them Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh and Mayo also died. Sulakhan Singh Singh remained unmarried throughout their life 10 namely Kashmir Singh and Swinder Singh alias Jaswant Singh proforma respondents No.6 and 7 respective legal heirs. grandsons i.e. before this Court) 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -2- appropriate punishment on the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P-1) and 14.03.2001 (Annexure P passed by this Court in aforementioned regular second appeal. of brevity, facts are being enumerated from RSA No. Succinctly, the facts are that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh sons of Singh and Smt. Keso widow of Ganga Singh were owners in possession of the land in dispute mentioned in the head and they mortgaged the same with defendants No.1 to 4, who are appellants before this Court, on 10.06.1975 and executed a mor in their favour for a period of 14 years i.e. upto 10.06.1989. Harbans Singh died on 10.10.1991 and being unmarried, his estate was inherited by defendant No.8-Bachan Singh ( before this Court) and his sister Tari Kaur. Tari Kaur also died and her legal heirs are defendants No.11 to 13 (proforma before this Court). On death of Rattan Singh inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh respondent No.6 before this Court) alias Jaswant Singh (proforma respondent No.7 before this Court) and his widow Smt. Mayo and out of them Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh and Mayo also died. Sulakhan Singh Singh remained unmarried throughout their life 10 namely Kashmir Singh and Swinder Singh alias Jaswant Singh respondents No.6 and 7 respective Smt. Keso has also died and her estate i.e. defendants No. 5 to 7 (proforma respondents No.2 to 4 before this Court) namely Swinder Singh, Virsa appropriate punishment on the respondents for willful disobedience of 1) and 14.03.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court in aforementioned regular second appeal. For the sake of brevity, facts are being enumerated from RSA No.1671 of 2000. Succinctly, the facts are that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh sons of Singh and Smt. Keso widow of Ganga Singh were owners in possession of the land in dispute mentioned in the head-note of the plaint and they mortgaged the same with defendants No.1 to 4, who are appellants before this Court, on 10.06.1975 and executed a mortgage deed in their favour for a period of 14 years i.e. upto 10.06.1989. Harbans Singh, died on 10.10.1991 and being unmarried, his estate was Bachan Singh (proforma respondent No.5 Tari Kaur. Tari Kaur also died and her proforma respondents No.8 to 10 On death of Rattan Singh, mortgagor, his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh respondent No.6 before this Court), Balkar Singh, Swinder respondent No.7 before this Court) and his widow Smt. Mayo and out of them Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh and Mayo also died. Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Balkar Singh remained unmarried throughout their life and defendants No.9 and 10 namely Kashmir Singh and Swinder Singh alias Jaswant Singh i.e. respondents No.6 and 7 respectively before this Court, are their o has also died and her estate was inherited by her defendants No. 5 to 7 (proforma respondents No.2 to 4 namely Swinder Singh, Virsa Singh, Kirpal Singh and appropriate punishment on the respondents for willful disobedience of 2) For the sake Succinctly, the facts are that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh sons of Singh and Smt. Keso widow of Ganga Singh were owners in note of the plaint and they mortgaged the same with defendants No.1 to 4, who are tgage deed , died on 10.10.1991 and being unmarried, his estate was respondent No.5 Tari Kaur. Tari Kaur also died and her respondents No.8 to 10 his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh , Balkar Singh, Swinder respondent No.7 before this Court) and his widow Smt. Mayo and out of them Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, , Dalbir Singh, Balkar 9 and i.e. ir was inherited by her defendants No. 5 to 7 (proforma respondents No.2 to 4 and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 by the plaintiff Court) on the basis of valid Will and mutation has also been sanctioned in this suit land was filed heir of Bachan Singh (proforma respondent No.5 before this Court) court of S.D.O. (Civil), Gurdaspur exercising the same was withdrawn by him basis of pecuniary to pay the mortgage money to def redeemed but when money to defendants No. 1 to 4, money to defendants Defendants and can get their share of the suit land after paying the mortgage money of their share to th mortgagees to possession of the suit land to him one day prior to the they refused to do so. possession by way of deed dated 3. Defendants No. on the ground Order 23 R Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh and Keso were the owners of the suit land and they mortgaged the same with them on 10.06.1975 of the even 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -3- plaintiff-Joginder Singh (contesting respondent No.1 befo on the basis of valid Will and mutation has also been sanctioned in this regard. A case regarding redemption of the suit land was filed by contesting respondent No.1 heir of Bachan Singh (proforma respondent No.5 before this Court) court of S.D.O. (Civil), Gurdaspur exercising the same was withdrawn by him due to the incapacity of the Court on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, he asked defendants N mortgage money to defendants No. but when they showed their incapacity in paying of the money to defendants No. 1 to 4, he came forward money to defendants No.1 to 4 for getting the suit land re efendants No.5 to 13 were put at liberty to join at any stage of the suit and can get their share of the suit land after paying the mortgage money of their share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked defendants No. mortgagees to take the mortgage money from him and to deliver the possession of the suit land to him one day prior to the they refused to do so. Hence, the instant suit filed by t possession by way of redemption of the suit land on the basis of mortgage 10.06.1975 against defendants No. Defendants No.1 to 4 contested the suit by filing the ground that the suit is barred under O Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C. On merits, defendants Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh and Keso were the owners of the suit land and they mortgaged the same with them on 10.06.1975 of the even date with possession and the date of expiry of the period of Joginder Singh (contesting respondent No.1 before this on the basis of valid Will and mutation No.1373 dated 31.08.1981 case regarding redemption of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, who is legal heir of Bachan Singh (proforma respondent No.5 before this Court) in the court of S.D.O. (Civil), Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Collector but due to the incapacity of the Court on the Thereafter, he asked defendants No.5 to 13 endants No.1 to 4 and get the suit land they showed their incapacity in paying of the mortgage came forward to pay the mortgage 1 to 4 for getting the suit land redeemed. at liberty to join at any stage of the suit and can get their share of the suit land after paying the mortgage money of plaintiff asked defendants No.1 to 4- take the mortgage money from him and to deliver the possession of the suit land to him one day prior to the filing of the suit but instant suit filed by the plaintiff for uit land on the basis of mortgage 10.06.1975 against defendants No.1 to 4. contested the suit by filing written statement that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and under .C. On merits, defendants No.1 to 4 admitted that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh and Keso were the owners of the suit land and they mortgaged the same with them on 10.06.1975 vide mortgage deed ssession and the date of expiry of the period of re this 1373 dated 31.08.1981 case regarding redemption of the , who is legal in the but due to the incapacity of the Court on the o.5 to 13 1 to 4 and get the suit land mortgage to pay the mortgage deemed. at liberty to join at any stage of the suit and can get their share of the suit land after paying the mortgage money of - take the mortgage money from him and to deliver the filing of the suit but he plaintiff for uit land on the basis of mortgage written statement Rule 2 C.P.C. and under admitted that Harbans Singh, Rattan Singh and Keso were the owners of the suit land mortgage deed ssession and the date of expiry of the period of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 mortgage was 10.06.1989 mortgagor has died but they denied that his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh and Balkar Singh as alleged in the plaint. According to these defendants, Smt. May Rattan Singh succeeded to the estate of Rattan Singh and share in the suit land to them and Sulakhan Singh and his brothers also sold out their share in the suit land to them on the basis of sale deeds dated 06.04.1979, 07.04.1 written statement that the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the suit land, which was withdrawn by him without seeking permission to file fresh suit on the from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Defendant whereby they admitted the claim of the plaintiff and no objection if the plaintiff get redeemed the suit land to the extent of their share from defen plaintiff after paying the mo filed a separ plaintiff and alleged that he has no objection if the plaintiff get rede his share from defendants No his share in the suit land from the plaintif the plaintiff. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -4- mortgage was 10.06.1989. Defendants further admitted that Rattan Singh, mortgagor has died but they denied that his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh and Balkar Singh as alleged in the plaint. According to these defendants, Smt. May Rattan Singh succeeded to the estate of Rattan Singh and share in the suit land to them and Sulakhan Singh and his brothers also sold out their share in the suit land to them on the basis of sale deeds dated 06.04.1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.1979. It written statement that the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the suit which was withdrawn by him without seeking permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and as such from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. Defendants No.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 filed separate written statement whereby they admitted the claim of the plaintiff and no objection if the plaintiff get redeemed the suit land to the extent of their share from defendants No. 1 to 4 and they will get their share from the plaintiff after paying the mortgage money to him. Defendant N separate written statement whereby he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that he has no objection if the plaintiff get rede his share from defendants No 1 to 4 regarding the suit land and he will get his share in the suit land from the plaintiff after paying mortgage money to the plaintiff. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- efendants further admitted that Rattan Singh, mortgagor has died but they denied that his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh and Balkar Singh as alleged in the plaint. According to these defendants, Smt. Mayo, widow of Rattan Singh succeeded to the estate of Rattan Singh and she had sold her share in the suit land to them and Sulakhan Singh and his brothers also sold out their share in the suit land to them on the basis of sale deeds dated 979 and 16.04.1979. It was also contended in their written statement that the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the suit which was withdrawn by him without seeking permission to file a cause of action and as such, the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, therefore, prayed that o.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 filed separate written statement whereby they admitted the claim of the plaintiff and prayed that they had no objection if the plaintiff get redeemed the suit land to the extent of their o. 1 to 4 and they will get their share from the rtgage money to him. Defendant No.9 also ate written statement whereby he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that he has no objection if the plaintiff get redeemed 1 to 4 regarding the suit land and he will get f after paying mortgage money to From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by efendants further admitted that Rattan Singh, mortgagor has died but they denied that his estate was inherited by his sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kashmir Singh and Balkar Singh as o, widow of sold her share in the suit land to them and Sulakhan Singh and his brothers also sold out their share in the suit land to them on the basis of sale deeds dated in their written statement that the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the suit a aintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, therefore, prayed that o.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 filed separate written statement prayed that they had no objection if the plaintiff get redeemed the suit land to the extent of their o. 1 to 4 and they will get their share from the o.9 also ate written statement whereby he admitted the claim of the emed 1 to 4 regarding the suit land and he will get f after paying mortgage money to From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the redemption of the suit property? OPP 2) Whether the suit is barred under Ord 23 Rule 1(4) CPC? OPD 3) Relief 6. Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it, returned of the plaintiff entitled to get the suit land redeemed from defendants No.1 to 4 on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs.39,000/ who are also co from the plain Issue No.2 was not pressed by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, thus, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the a decree passed by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by defendants No.1 to 4, which was also dismissed. Hence, the regular second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants admittedly, Dalbir Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Balkar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Rattan Singh had sold their share of the land to appellants and therefore, by the act of parties, the integrity of the mortgage has b eventuality, the plaintiff could not seek redemption of whole of the mortgaged property and his right of redemption was restricted to his own share. Furthermore, he could not seek redemption on behalf of other co 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -5- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the redemption of the suit property? OPP Whether the suit is barred under Ord 23 Rule 1(4) CPC? OPD Relief Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it, returned of the plaintiff and against defendants No.1 to 4 entitled to get the suit land redeemed from defendants No.1 to 4 on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs.39,000/ who are also co-owners of the suit land, can get their share in the suit land from the plaintiff after payment of their share of mortgage money to him. Issue No.2 was not pressed by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, thus, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the a decree passed by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by defendants No.1 to 4, which was also dismissed. Hence, the regular second Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants No.1 to 4 argued that Smt. Mayo Devi widow of Rattan Singh Dalbir Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Balkar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Rattan Singh had sold their share of the land to appellants and therefore, by the act of parties, the integrity of the mortgage has b eventuality, the plaintiff could not seek redemption of whole of the mortgaged property and his right of redemption was restricted to his own share. Furthermore, he could not seek redemption on behalf of other co Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the redemption of the suit Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and Order Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it, returned a finding in favour and against defendants No.1 to 4 by holding that he is entitled to get the suit land redeemed from defendants No.1 to 4 on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs.39,000/- and defendants No.5 to 13, owners of the suit land, can get their share in the suit land tiff after payment of their share of mortgage money to him. Issue No.2 was not pressed by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, thus, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by defendants No.1 to 4, which was also dismissed. Hence, the regular second defendants No.1 to 4 argued that Smt. Mayo Devi widow of Rattan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Dalbir Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Balkar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Rattan Singh had sold their share of the land to appellants and therefore, by the act of parties, the integrity of the mortgage has been broken. In that eventuality, the plaintiff could not seek redemption of whole of the mortgaged property and his right of redemption was restricted to his own share. Furthermore, he could not seek redemption on behalf of other co- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the redemption of the suit er 2 Rule 2 CPC and Order Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as finding in favour by holding that he is entitled to get the suit land redeemed from defendants No.1 to 4 on and defendants No.5 to 13, owners of the suit land, can get their share in the suit land tiff after payment of their share of mortgage money to him. Issue No.2 was not pressed by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, thus, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2019 foresaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by defendants No.1 to 4, which was also dismissed. Hence, the regular second defendants No.1 to 4 argued that , Kashmir Singh, Dalbir Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Balkar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Rattan Singh had sold their share of the land to appellants and therefore, by een broken. In that eventuality, the plaintiff could not seek redemption of whole of the mortgaged property and his right of redemption was restricted to his own - PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 sharers/co-mortgagors proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, mortgagor to redeem the suit property is available only extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a that since the appellants have purchased a share of the property from some of the mortgagors, the right to redeem has been extinguished by act of parties, as the suit property has lost the character of mortgage. regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed in others Vs. Jaipal and others AIR 1993 Allahabad 257 where the mortgagees purchase a share of the property mortgaged the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. cannot be held entitled to seek Further reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in through LRs and another entire mortgaged property from the mortgagors and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that purchase of property by sale deed dated 21.12.1970 is an act of the parties, by which the right of redemption qua the appellant became extinguished. appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and dismissing the suit of the respondent No.1 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -6- mortgagors. In support of this contention, he relied upon the proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, mortgagor to redeem the suit property is available only extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a that since the appellants have purchased a share of the property from some of the mortgagors, the right to redeem has been extinguished by act of parties, as the suit property has lost the character of mortgage. ance was placed upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed in others Vs. Jaipal and others AIR 1993 Allahabad 257 where the mortgagees purchase a share of the property mortgaged the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. On the same analogy, the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot be held entitled to seek redemption of property more than his share. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamila Begum (D) through LRs Vs. Shami through LRs and another where one of the mortgagees had purchased the mortgaged property from the mortgagors and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that purchase of property by sale deed dated 21.12.1970 is an act of the parties, by which the right of redemption qua the appellant became extinguished. Therefore, l appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and dismissing the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff. . In support of this contention, he relied upon the proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that right of mortgagor to redeem the suit property is available only if such right is not extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a court. It was argued that since the appellants have purchased a share of the property from some of the mortgagors, the right to redeem has been extinguished by act of parties, as the suit property has lost the character of mortgage. In this ance was placed upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed in Mt. JagannathKunwar and others Vs. Jaipal and others AIR 1993 Allahabad 257 to contend that where the mortgagees purchase a share of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share On the same analogy, the respondent No.1/plaintiff redemption of property more than his share. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jamila Begum (D) through LRs Vs. Shami Mohd. (D) where one of the mortgagees had purchased the mortgaged property from the mortgagors and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that purchase of property by sale deed dated 21.12.1970 is an act of the parties, by which the right of redemption qua Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and dismissing the suit of the . In support of this contention, he relied upon the that right of if such right is not It was argued that since the appellants have purchased a share of the property from some of the mortgagors, the right to redeem has been extinguished by act of In this ance was placed upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of the Mt. JagannathKunwar and to contend that to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share On the same analogy, the respondent No.1/plaintiff redemption of property more than his share. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Mohd. (D) where one of the mortgagees had purchased the mortgaged property from the mortgagors and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that purchase of property by sale deed dated 21.12.1970 is an act of the parties, by which the right of redemption qua earned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and dismissing the suit of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 8. argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, do not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal, thus, prayed for dismissal of the same. 9. through paper book 10. this Court had stayed the operation of impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2001, the appeal was admitted and interim order was ordered to be continued. No.1 to 4, it is contended that continued by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001, respondent No. and raised a boundary line throughout the length of the land i thus, willfully and deliberately disobeyed orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001 passed by this Court. 11. respondent No.1/plaintiff can seek redemption on behalf of other co mortgagors as well and whether the right to seek redemption of the suit property has been extinguished by act of parties, as some part of the mortgaged property has been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. 12. recognized as a statutory and legal right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is reproduced as under: 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -7- Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, do not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal, thus, prayed for dismissal of the same. I have heard learned counsel for the through paper book with their able assistance While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 27.04.2000, this Court had stayed the operation of impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2001, the appeal was admitted and interim order was ordered to be continued. In the contempt petition filed by the petitioners No.1 to 4, it is contended that despite stay orders granted and ordered to be continued by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001, respondent No.-1/plaintiff and others entered into the suit property forcibly and raised a boundary line throughout the length of the land i thus, willfully and deliberately disobeyed orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001 passed by this Court. The issue for consideration before this Court is whether respondent No.1/plaintiff can seek redemption on behalf of other co gors as well and whether the right to seek redemption of the suit property has been extinguished by act of parties, as some part of the mortgaged property has been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. Right of mortgagor to redeem mortgaged property recognized as a statutory and legal right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is reproduced as under: Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, do not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal, thus, prayed have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone able assistance as well as the case laws cited. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 27.04.2000, this Court had stayed the operation of impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2001, the appeal was admitted and interim order was ordered to be In the contempt petition filed by the petitioners-defendants despite stay orders granted and ordered to be continued by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001, 1/plaintiff and others entered into the suit property forcibly and raised a boundary line throughout the length of the land in dispute and thus, willfully and deliberately disobeyed orders dated 27.04.2000 and The issue for consideration before this Court is whether respondent No.1/plaintiff can seek redemption on behalf of other co- gors as well and whether the right to seek redemption of the suit property has been extinguished by act of parties, as some part of the mortgaged property has been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. Right of mortgagor to redeem mortgaged property is recognized as a statutory and legal right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is reproduced as under:- Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, do not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal, thus, prayed and have gone as well as the case laws cited. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 27.04.2000, s and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2001, the appeal was admitted and interim order was ordered to be defendants despite stay orders granted and ordered to be continued by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2000 and 14.03.2001, 1/plaintiff and others entered into the suit property forcibly n dispute and thus, willfully and deliberately disobeyed orders dated 27.04.2000 and The issue for consideration before this Court is whether - gors as well and whether the right to seek redemption of the suit property has been extinguished by act of parties, as some part of the is recognized as a statutory and legal right under Section 60 of the Transfer PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -8- “60. Right of mortgagor to redeem principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the 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) possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execut 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 t 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. Redemption of portion of mortgaged property. Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.” 60. Right of mortgagor to redeem.—At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to 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 of the mortgagor 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 Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a 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. of portion of mortgaged property.— Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such e 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 his section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a The right conferred by this section is called a right to 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 — Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 13. A mortgagor’ which can be extinguished only in a manner known to law. Such extinguishment of the right can take place; (i) by act of parties viz; by a contract between the parties, by a merger or by a statutory pro by decree of the court. possession of the mortgaged property under a mortgage will have to give up possession of the property when a suit for redemption is filed unless he shows that the right of redemption has come to an end or that the suit is liable to be dismissed on some other valid ground. This flows from the legal principle, which is applica mortgage, always a mortgage”. 14. 4/mortgagees purchased a share of the property from legal heirs of one of the original dated 06.04.1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.1979 such act of parties has resulted into extinguishment of the mortgage itself, the answer is in negative. AIR 1985 P&H 268 mortgagees has acquired by purch cannot be said that the mortgage over that portion has merged in the sale. The purchaser mortgagee cannot insist that the mortgagor should redeem only that part of the property, which has not been purchased. High Court in and Ors. AIR 1940 MADRAS 498 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -9- mortgagor’s right of redemption is indefeasible and invariable, which can be extinguished only in a manner known to law. Such extinguishment of the right can take place; (i) by act of parties viz; by a contract between the parties, by a merger or by a statutory pro by decree of the court. Otherwise, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property under a mortgage will have to give up possession of the property when a suit for redemption is filed unless he that the right of redemption has come to an end or that the suit is liable to be dismissed on some other valid ground. This flows from the legal principle, which is applicable to all mortgages namely “once a mortgage, always a mortgage”. Admittedly, in the present case, appellants 4/mortgagees purchased a share of the property from legal heirs of one of original mortgagors namely Rattan Singh vide sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3 06.04.1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.1979 such act of parties has resulted into extinguishment of the mortgage itself, the answer is in negative. This Court in Naurang Singh Vs. Jangir Singh AIR 1985 P&H 268 has held that where one only of a number of mortgagees has acquired by purchase a part of the mortgaged property, it cannot be said that the mortgage over that portion has merged in the sale. The purchaser mortgagee cannot insist that the mortgagor should redeem only that part of the property, which has not been purchased. High Court in Eswara Krishna Aiyar and Anr. and Ors. AIR 1940 MADRAS 498 has held as under: “……It may be necessary in this connection to examine the reason why an exception is made to the general rule that the s right of redemption is indefeasible and invariable, which can be extinguished only in a manner known to law. Such extinguishment of the right can take place; (i) by act of parties viz; by a contract between the parties, by a merger or by a statutory provision or (ii) Otherwise, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property under a mortgage will have to give up possession of the property when a suit for redemption is filed unless he that the right of redemption has come to an end or that the suit is liable to be dismissed on some other valid ground. This flows from the to all mortgages namely “once a in the present case, appellants-defendants No.1 to 4/mortgagees purchased a share of the property from legal heirs of one of Rattan Singh vide sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3 06.04.1979, 07.04.1979 and 16.04.1979 respectively and thus, can such act of parties has resulted into extinguishment of the mortgage itself, Naurang Singh Vs. Jangir Singh has held that where one only of a number of ase a part of the mortgaged property, it cannot be said that the mortgage over that portion has merged in the sale. The purchaser mortgagee cannot insist that the mortgagor should redeem only that part of the property, which has not been purchased. The Madras Eswara Krishna Aiyar and Anr. Vs Mariya Susai Reddiar has held as under:- It may be necessary in this connection to examine the reason why an exception is made to the general rule that the s right of redemption is indefeasible and invariable, which can be extinguished only in a manner known to law. Such extinguishment of the right can take place; (i) by act of parties viz; by a vision or (ii) Otherwise, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property under a mortgage will have to give up possession of the property when a suit for redemption is filed unless he that the right of redemption has come to an end or that the suit is liable to be dismissed on some other valid ground. This flows from the to all mortgages namely “once a defendants No.1 to 4/mortgagees purchased a share of the property from legal heirs of one of Rattan Singh vide sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3 nd thus, can such act of parties has resulted into extinguishment of the mortgage itself, Naurang Singh Vs. Jangir Singh has held that where one only of a number of ase a part of the mortgaged property, it cannot be said that the mortgage over that portion has merged in the sale. The purchaser mortgagee cannot insist that the mortgagor should redeem adras Reddiar It may be necessary in this connection to examine the reason why an exception is made to the general rule that the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -10- redemption must be of an entirety of the property in cases where the mortgagee acquires a share of the mortgagor. When the mortgagee acquires the equity of redemption he steps into the shoes of the mortgagor in respect of the property purchased subject to the mortgage in There is thus, a fusion of interests of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee and the mortgage becomes extinguished. The result of the extinguishment is that the mortgage debt over that property is wiped out, though every parcel of the mortgaged property so far as the mortgagee is concerned is liable for the entire mortgage debt but as between the mortgaged properties they are liable to contribute rate ably to the debt (Section 82 of the Transf principle would apply as between the mortgagors inter se. As the mortgagee by purchase of the equity of redemption becomes a mortgagor in respect of the property purchased, the principle would apply also against him by virtue of h taking the character of a mortgagor in respect of a portion of the property. The extent of the debt that is wiped out will be proportionate to the relative value of the property purchased. In the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more than one mortgagor, with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be owned by the mortgagor o would be liable for the remainder of the mortgage debt. may be said that the rest of the property is "the share of the mortgagor" within the meaning of the section. It does not matter, whether the equity of redemption is purchased in execution of a decree against a mortgagor or by private treaty. The principle applicable would be the same in both cases. Vide Bisheshur Dial v. Ram Sarup All. 284 (F.B.) (execution sale), Ponnambala Pillai v. be of an entirety of the property in cases where the mortgagee acquires a share of the mortgagor. When the mortgagee acquires the equity of redemption he steps into the shoes of the mortgagor in respect of the property purchased subject to the mortgage in his favour. There is thus, a fusion of interests of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee and the mortgage becomes extinguished. The result of the extinguishment is that the mortgage debt over that property is wiped out, though every parcel of the d property so far as the mortgagee is concerned is liable for the entire mortgage debt but as between the mortgaged properties they are liable to contribute rate ably of the Transfer of Property Act). This principle would apply as between the mortgagors inter se. As the mortgagee by purchase of the equity of redemption becomes a mortgagor in respect of the property purchased, the principle would apply also against him by virtue of his taking the character of a mortgagor in respect of a portion of the property. The extent of the debt that is wiped out will be proportionate to the relative value of the property purchased. In the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more e mortgagor, with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be owned by the mortgagor or mortgagors and it would be liable for the remainder of the mortgage debt. It may be said that the rest of the property is "the share of the mortgagor" within the meaning of the section. It does not matter, whether the equity of redemption is purchased in execution of a decree against a mortgagor or by private . The principle applicable would be the same in both Vide Bisheshur Dial v. Ram Sarup (1900) I.L.R. 22 execution sale), Ponnambala Pillai v. be of an entirety of the property in cases where the mortgagee acquires a share of the mortgagor. When the mortgagee acquires the equity of redemption he steps into the shoes of the mortgagor in respect of the his favour. There is thus, a fusion of interests of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee and the mortgage becomes extinguished. The result of the extinguishment is that the mortgage debt over that property is wiped out, though every parcel of the d property so far as the mortgagee is concerned is liable for the entire mortgage debt but as between the mortgaged properties they are liable to contribute rate ably er of Property Act). This principle would apply as between the mortgagors inter se. As the mortgagee by purchase of the equity of redemption becomes a mortgagor in respect of the property purchased, is taking the character of a mortgagor in respect of a portion of the property. The extent of the debt that is wiped out will be proportionate to the relative value of the property purchased. In the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more e mortgagor, with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property r mortgagors and it It may be said that the rest of the property is "the share of the mortgagor" within the meaning of the section. It does not matter, whether the equity of redemption is purchased in execution of a decree against a mortgagor or by private . The principle applicable would be the same in both (1900) I.L.R. 22 execution sale), Ponnambala Pillai v. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 15. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants defendants No.1 to 4 in come to his rescue, as in this case, it purchase a share out of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. However, in the case but the mortgagor and not any purchaser from the mortgagor i.e. third party. Furthermore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellants in distinguishable on facts, in this case, the appellant had purchased the entire property and thus, extinguished by acts of parties. Mere purchase of a share of mortgaged 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -11- Annamalai Chettiar (1920) 38 M.L.J. 239 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 372 (F.B.) (execution sale) and Mutty Lal Pal v. Nandu Lal Neogi (1908) 12 C.W.N. 745 the mortgaged property is not the mortgagor alone and before the purchase of equity of redemption portions of the mortgaged property become vested in third parties or where the mortgagee purchases from a co item of property from an owner who held it in distinct ownership, not only is the debt pro tanto extinguished but the owners of different items will be entitled to redeem the properties on payment of the proportionate part of the debt. There is no doubt about the applicability same principle would apply in whatsoever manner the equity of redemption is acquired by the mortgagee, that is, by inheritance or by devise Hussain (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 335 The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants defendants No.1 to 4 in Mt. Jagannath Kumar and others come to his rescue, as in this case, it is held purchase a share out of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. in the case in hand, the person seeking redemption is none else but the mortgagor and not any purchaser from the mortgagor i.e. third party. Furthermore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellants in Jamila Begum (D) through LRs distinguishable on facts, in this case, the appellant had purchased the entire property and thus, there was a merger of title and the mortgage was extinguished by acts of parties. Mere purchase of a share of mortgaged (1920) 38 M.L.J. 239 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. (execution sale) and Mutty Lal Pal v. Nandu Lal ) 12 C.W.N. 745. Where a person interested in the mortgaged property is not the mortgagor alone and before the purchase of equity of redemption portions of the mortgaged property become vested in third parties or where the mortgagee purchases from a co-sharer his share or an an owner who held it in distinct ownership, not only is the debt pro tanto extinguished but the owners of different items will be entitled to redeem the properties on payment of the proportionate part of the debt. There is no doubt about the applicability of this rule. The same principle would apply in whatsoever manner the equity of redemption is acquired by the mortgagee, that is, or by devise- Hamida Bibi v. Ahmad 31 All. 335.” The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants- Mt. Jagannath Kumar and others (supra) does not held that where the mortgagees purchase a share out of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. the person seeking redemption is none else but the mortgagor and not any purchaser from the mortgagor i.e. third party. Furthermore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the Jamila Begum (D) through LRs (supra) is also distinguishable on facts, in this case, the appellant had purchased the entire there was a merger of title and the mortgage was extinguished by acts of parties. Mere purchase of a share of mortgaged (1920) 38 M.L.J. 239 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. (execution sale) and Mutty Lal Pal v. Nandu Lal d in the mortgaged property is not the mortgagor alone and before the purchase of equity of redemption portions of the mortgaged property become vested in third parties or where sharer his share or an an owner who held it in distinct ownership, not only is the debt pro tanto extinguished but the owners of different items will be entitled to redeem the properties on payment of the proportionate part of the debt. The same principle would apply in whatsoever manner the equity of redemption is acquired by the mortgagee, that is, Hamida Bibi v. Ahmad - (supra) does not that where the mortgagees purchase a share out of the property mortgaged to them, the integrity of the mortgage is broken and therefore, it is not open to the purchaser from some of the mortgagors to redeem more than the share purchased by him. the person seeking redemption is none else but the mortgagor and not any purchaser from the mortgagor i.e. third party. Furthermore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the also distinguishable on facts, in this case, the appellant had purchased the entire there was a merger of title and the mortgage was extinguished by acts of parties. Mere purchase of a share of mortgaged PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 property from one of the mortgag does not extinguish the mortgage. mortgage either completely or in part only if there is a merger of title. the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more than one mortga with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be owned by the mortgagor or mortga divisible only when there is a fusion of th with that of the mortgagee portion of equity of redemption, the mortgage is not extinguished completely. right to the extent of the mortgagee acquiring the mortgagor's interest and so far as the other sharer of the equity of redemption is concerned, the mortgage will subsist. arise only when the entire right of the mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagee and not when a fractional interest of one of the co acquired by the mortgagee or his legal representatives suit property 4 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors by purchasing some fraction of suit property from legal heirs of one of the mortgagors, meaning thereby, have becom they are entitled to get partitioned the suit land on the basis of sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3, after the suit land is redeemed. 16. Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -12- property from one of the mortgagors with consent of other co does not extinguish the mortgage. There can be no extinguishment of a mortgage either completely or in part only if there is a merger of title. the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more than one mortga with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be owned by the mortgagor or mortgagors. divisible only when there is a fusion of th with that of the mortgagees. When a mortgagee in possession acquires a portion of equity of redemption, the mortgage is not extinguished . There can be only a pro tanto right to the extent of the mortgagee acquiring the mortgagor's interest and so far as the other sharer of the equity of redemption is concerned, the mortgage will subsist. The question of brea arise only when the entire right of the mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagee and not when a fractional interest of one of the co acquired by the mortgagee or his legal representatives suit property is a joint holding and since the appellants 4 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors by purchasing some fraction of suit property from legal heirs of one of the mortgagors, meaning thereby, have become co-sharers, both the courts below have rightly observed that they are entitled to get partitioned the suit land on the basis of sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3, after the suit land is redeemed. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others ors with consent of other co-mortgagors There can be no extinguishment of a mortgage either completely or in part only if there is a merger of title. In the case of a single mortgagor or where there is more than one mortgagor, with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be . Mortgaged property becomes divisible only when there is a fusion of the interest of all the mortgagors hen a mortgagee in possession acquires a portion of equity of redemption, the mortgage is not extinguished extinguishment of the mortgage right to the extent of the mortgagee acquiring the mortgagor's interest and so far as the other sharer of the equity of redemption is concerned, the he question of breaking of the mortgage would arise only when the entire right of the mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagee and not when a fractional interest of one of the co-mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagee or his legal representatives. Undisputedly, the a joint holding and since the appellants-defendants No.1 to 4 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors by purchasing some fraction of suit property from legal heirs of one of the mortgagors, meaning thereby, sharers, both the courts below have rightly observed that they are entitled to get partitioned the suit land on the basis of sale deeds Ex.D1 to D3, after the suit land is redeemed. n view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others mortgagors There can be no extinguishment of a In gor, with their consent, when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption in an item or a part of the property, no question of partial or piecemeal redemption would arise because the rest of the property would still be ortgaged property becomes e interest of all the mortgagors hen a mortgagee in possession acquires a portion of equity of redemption, the mortgage is not extinguished extinguishment of the mortgage right to the extent of the mortgagee acquiring the mortgagor's interest and so far as the other sharer of the equity of redemption is concerned, the king of the mortgage would arise only when the entire right of the mortgagors is acquired by the mortgagors is Undisputedly, the defendants No.1 to 4 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors by purchasing some fraction of suit property from legal heirs of one of the mortgagors, meaning thereby, sharers, both the courts below have rightly observed that they are entitled to get partitioned the suit land on the basis of sale deeds ble Supreme Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1671 Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157 Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab 17. and perversity and the same dismissed. 18. survives for consideration therein, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the regular second appeal. 19. August 12, Pankaj* 1671 of 2000 (O&M) -13- Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157 Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts As an upshot of above discussion, and perversity in the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below and the same is upheld. Resultantly, t The contempt petition also stands disposed of, as nothing for consideration therein, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the regular second appeal. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below Resultantly, the regular second appeal is The contempt petition also stands disposed of, as nothing for consideration therein, in view of the judgment passed by this Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Gurbachan Singh (dead) , questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by this Court finds no illegality concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is The contempt petition also stands disposed of, as nothing for consideration therein, in view of the judgment passed by this PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh