A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court of India, in Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal & Others, [1958 SCR 509], addressed the question of whether a mortgagor’s right to redeem a mortgage after 85 years constituted a “clog on the equity of redemption” under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The case revolved around a mortgage deed executed in 1899 that specified a redemption period of 85 years, with a stipulation that the mortgagor must redeem within six months thereafter, failing which the mortgage deed would be treated as an absolute sale. The Apex Court analysed whether such stipulations restrict the statutory right of redemption and whether the mortgagor entered into the transaction under coercion or unequal bargaining conditions. Ultimately, the Court held that the term delaying redemption for 85 years did not constitute a clog, as it was not unconscionable. However, the clause terminating redemption rights after six months was declared invalid. This case illustrates the nuanced application of equitable principles in Indian mortgage law and underlines the judiciary’s authority to invalidate oppressive or unfair mortgage terms.
Keywords: Equity of Redemption, Mortgage, Section 60 TPA, Clog on Redemption, Transfer of Property Act, Unconscionable Contracts
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal & Others
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1954
iii) Judgement Date: April 15, 1958
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Bhagwati, J.L. Kapur, and A.K. Sarkar
vi) Author: Justice A.K. Sarkar
vii) Citation: [1958] SCR 509
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly overruled
x) Case is Related to: Property Law, specifically Law of Mortgage
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The litigation pertained to a redemption suit challenging the enforceability of a mortgage agreement executed on 1st August 1899 between Purshottamdas (the original mortgagor) and Dhanrupmal (the original mortgagee). After several legal challenges spanning trial and appellate stages, the matter came before the Supreme Court on a pivotal question—whether a redemption clause that extends the mortgagor’s right to reclaim the property to 85 years post-mortgage can be upheld under the equitable doctrine embedded in Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. The mortgage deed contained dual provisions: (a) barring redemption for 85 years, and (b) allowing only six months to redeem post-period, failing which ownership would vest with the mortgagee. The interplay of these clauses and the factual context became central to the case.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1899, Purshottamdas mortgaged a four-roomed shop in Kaya Bazar, Ajmer to Dhanrupmal for ₹6,300. Of this, ₹5,750 was used to redeem a prior mortgage. The terms provided for usufructuary mortgage possession to Dhanrupmal and an 85-year bar on redemption, with a six-month window thereafter, beyond which redemption would lapse. The mortgage also stated that failure to redeem would convert the mortgage into a sale without further formalities. In 1939, Dhanrupmal transferred his mortgage rights to Motilal, who later died. The mortgagor’s successor, Ganga Dhar, filed the suit in 1947 seeking redemption. The defendants claimed that redemption was premature.
The trial court granted a preliminary decree of redemption holding the 85-year restriction void as a clog. However, the Judicial Commissioner reversed the decision, upholding the enforceability of the redemption bar. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the covenant imposing the 85-year bar and six-month condition constituted a legally enforceable term or an invalid clog on the equity of redemption.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the stipulation preventing redemption of the mortgage for 85 years constitutes a clog on the equity of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
ii) Whether the clause converting the mortgage into a sale deed upon failure to redeem within six months is valid in law.
iii) Whether the mortgage agreement was unconscionable, thereby invoking the equitable jurisdiction to provide relief to the mortgagor.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for the appellant submitted that the 85-year term was excessive and inherently unreasonable, functioning effectively as a means to circumvent the mortgagor’s statutory right to redeem under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act[1].
They asserted that the added stipulation that redemption must occur within six months after the 85-year period and the consequence of forfeiture thereafter amounted to an unlawful clog on the right to redeem. They placed reliance on the maxim “once a mortgage, always a mortgage” and argued that any attempt to make the mortgage irrevocable or convert it into a sale contradicted the essence of a mortgage, which is inherently redeemable[2].
The petitioner also referenced Mohammad Sher Khan v. Seth Swami Dayal, (1921) 49 I.A. 60, where the Privy Council invalidated any clause that hindered redemption post-maturity, emphasizing that the right to redeem is continuous once it accrues[3].
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that the 85-year term did not extinguish the right to redeem, but only postponed its exercise. They argued that a contractually agreed delay in redemption, even if extensive, is valid so long as it doesn’t permanently bar redemption.
They cited the freedom of contract doctrine, arguing that the mortgagor was under no undue pressure and freely negotiated the terms. No evidence suggested the mortgagor was in financial distress, nor did the mortgagee gain disproportionately[4].
They placed reliance on Santley v. Wilde, [1899] 2 Ch. 474, which held that so long as redemption is ultimately possible, the clause is valid unless tainted by fraud, coercion or undue advantage[5].
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Provides the mortgagor the right to redeem after the principal amount is due. Courts have interpreted this as embedding the doctrine that redemption is inseparable from a mortgage[6].
ii) Doctrine of “once a mortgage, always a mortgage”: A mortgage must always remain redeemable, and any clause to the contrary is void.
iii) Equity and unconscionable contracts: Courts will invalidate any contractual term that arises from an unequal bargaining position.
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Court held that the 85-year clause was not a clog as it did not extinguish the right to redeem but merely postponed its accrual. There was no evidence that the mortgagor was under duress or financial compulsion at the time of execution, and the mortgage deed was not unconscionable[7].
The Court distinguished between clauses that postpone redemption and those that extinguish it, stating that only the latter are invalid as clogs. The clause converting the mortgage into a sale after the lapse of six months post 85 years was, however, held to be a clog and declared void as it conflicted with the mortgagor’s continuing right under Section 60[8].
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court remarked that mere length of postponement does not imply unreasonableness. Equity intervenes only when terms are imposed in unconscionable circumstances, such as when a lender takes advantage of a debtor’s vulnerable position.
c. GUIDELINES
i) A postponement of the right to redeem does not amount to a clog, unless:
-
It results in the total extinguishment of the right.
-
It arises out of an unequal bargaining power or unconscionable advantage.
ii) Clauses converting a mortgage into a sale post-failure to redeem, even after maturity, are void and unenforceable under Section 60.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This case is a landmark precedent clarifying the Indian law regarding the equity of redemption. It demonstrates the Indian judiciary’s nuanced understanding of the doctrine’s equitable roots. The judgement wisely separates postponement clauses from extinguishment clauses, thereby balancing freedom of contract with equitable protections for mortgagors. It reinforces that mere length of redemption period is not conclusive proof of a clog, and courts must look for substantive unfairness in each case.
The Court applied historical English law principles such as Vernon v. Bethell (1762) and Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat Co. [1914] AC 25 to reinforce the moral underpinning of mortgage law: lenders cannot trap borrowers in unconscionable terms. The judgment is foundational in guiding future courts to carefully distinguish between delay and denial in redemption rights.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i) Vernon v. Bethell, (1762) 2 Eden 110; 28 E.R. 838 [1]
ii) Santley v. Wilde, [1899] 2 Ch. 474 [2]
iii) Mohammad Sher Khan v. Seth Swami Dayal, (1921) L.R. 49 I.A. 60 [3]
iv) Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co. Ltd., [1914] AC 25 [4]
v) Bakhtawar Begum v. Husaini Khanam, (1913) L.R. 41 I.A. 84 [5]
