Rights of Mortgagee in Possession: Transfer of Property Act

1.      Introduction

The rights of mortgagee in possession are fundamental to property law under Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act. A mortgage is an arrangement where the borrower provides security over property to the lender. When in possession, the mortgagee is responsible for protecting the property and maintaining their security interest.

Section 72 of the Act addresses the rights of mortgagees in possession, particularly regarding expenses for preservation and protection. The provision ensures mortgagees are reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred to safeguard their interests. This maintains equity between mortgagees and mortgagors.

Section 72 seeks to provide mortgagees with the ability to recover expenses that arise from actions taken to preserve the property, defend their title, and maintain lease agreements. This provision has been interpreted by courts to ensure that mortgagees are not left financially burdened when they undertake such responsibilities, while also ensuring that mortgagors are not unfairly deprived of their ownership rights. The scope of Section 72 is broad, encompassing expenses related to the preservation of the property, defending against claims, and even the renewal of leases, thus ensuring that mortgagees are adequately protected in their role as custodians of the property.

Judicial interpretations of Section 72 have further clarified the extent of mortgagees’ rights and the limitations placed on these claims. Courts emphasize that only necessary and reasonable expenses can be claimed. Mortgagees must prove these expenses were incurred in good faith. Section 72 also recognizes contractual agreements, which may limit or exclude certain claims. Such agreements may allocate responsibilities differently. Thus, Section 72 balances mortgagees’ rights and the principle of freedom of contract.

In practice, Section 72 continues to be a vital provision, ensuring that mortgagees can safeguard their interests without suffering undue financial loss. This article explores the scope, judicial interpretations, and practical implications of Section 72, supported by relevant case laws, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the rights of mortgagees in possession under Indian property law.

2.     Historical Background and Context of Rights of Mortgagee

The Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, governs the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, including mortgages. Section 72 was originally introduced by the Amending Act of 1929, which sought to provide clarity on the rights of mortgagees with regard to costs incurred for maintaining their security interests, irrespective of their possession status.

Prior to the amendment, there was ambiguity regarding whether only mortgagees in possession could claim such expenses or if non-possessing mortgagees could also make such claims. The 1929 amendment expanded the scope of Section 72 to ensure that mortgagees, whether in possession or not, had the right to claim reimbursement for certain expenditures essential to preserving their security interest in the mortgaged property.

The primary objective of Section 72 is rooted in equity and justice, ensuring that mortgagees are not left bearing the financial burden of protecting their security without any form of recourse. The provision aims to strike a balance between the rights of mortgagees and mortgagors, ensuring that the mortgagee can recover reasonable and necessary expenses incurred to protect their interest.

3.     Scope of Rights of Mortgagee, Section 72

Section 72 outlines the expenses that mortgagees are entitled to recover from the mortgagor, either as additions to the principal debt or as independent claims. The section broadly deals with five categories of expenses:

1. Preservation of the Property

Under this provision, mortgagees are entitled to incur necessary expenses to safeguard the mortgaged property from any threats such as destruction, forfeiture, or legal claims. The intention is to ensure that the security interest remains intact.

• Application: This applies when the property faces external claims, like legal disputes or threats of sale due to a court order.
• Case Law: In Perianna v. Marudainayagam [1], the Madras High Court held that a mortgagee could claim reimbursement for expenses incurred to protect the property from being sold under execution.

2. Supporting the Mortgagor’s Title

Mortgagees are entitled to the costs incurred to support the mortgagor’s title, particularly when they are defending against claims that threaten the mortgagor’s ownership rights.

• Application: This covers scenarios where the mortgagor’s title is disputed by third parties or in cases of fraudulent claims.
• Case Law: In Umesh Chandra v. Khulna Loan Co. [2], the Bombay High Court upheld the right of mortgagees to claim expenses incurred in defending the mortgagor’s title.

3. Defending the Mortgagee’s Title Against the Mortgagor

Mortgagees are entitled to incur costs necessary to protect their title from the mortgagor or other parties disputing the mortgage.

• Application: This applies when the mortgagee faces claims from the mortgagor or claims of prior liens or other encumbrances on the property.
• Case Law: In Kadar Moideen v Nepean [3], the court affirmed the mortgagee’s right to claim costs related to defending their title.

4. Renewal of Leases

When the mortgaged property includes renewable leases, mortgagees are entitled to the expenses incurred for renewing such leases.

• Application: This applies when the mortgaged property involves leaseholds that need to be renewed periodically.
• Case Law: In Venkata Satteya v. Mulibai [4], the court upheld that mortgagees could claim the costs related to lease renewals.

5. Insurance of the Property

Where the property is insurable, mortgagees are entitled to insure the property against loss or damage by fire and add such premiums to the mortgage debt.

• Application: This applies when the mortgagor fails to insure the property, leaving it exposed to potential risks.
• Case Law: In Farzand Ali v. Mirza Saddiq [5], the court upheld that mortgagees could insure the property and recover the premiums as part of their claim.

4.     Judicial Interpretations of Rights of Mortgagee, Section 72

The application of Section 72 has been shaped and refined by judicial interpretations, which have consistently sought to clarify the scope and limitations of the mortgagee’s rights.

1. Necessity of Expenditure

Section 72 stipulates that the expenditure claimed by mortgagees must be “necessary” and must not have been undertaken by the mortgagor when called upon to do so. Courts have interpreted “necessary” expenditure as contingent on the facts of each case.

• Case Law: In Syed Ibrahim v. Arumugathayee [6], the Court clarified that what constitutes “necessary” depends on the circumstances, and the mortgagee must justify the expenditure.

2. Insurable Property and Insurance Premiums

Mortgagees may insure the property and recover premiums if the property is insurable and the mortgagor fails to do so. However, such expenses are contingent on the mortgage terms.

• Case Law: In Dalsing v. Sunder Kunwar [7], the court held that mortgagees are entitled to recover premiums if the mortgagor defaults.

3. Costs Against Mortgagor and Third Parties

Mortgagees cannot claim expenses related to defending their title against third parties unless they are made parties to the litigation. However, they are entitled to recover costs incurred in defending their title against the mortgagor.

• Case Law: In Midnapore Zamindary Co Ltd v Saradindu Mukhopadhaya [8], the court ruled that costs incurred in defending title against third parties are not recoverable under Section 72.

5.     Practical Implications and Limitations of Rights of Mortgagee, Section 72

1. Contractual Limitations

Section 72 allows for exceptions based on contractual agreements. If the mortgagee has agreed to bear all expenses, they cannot claim reimbursement under Section 72.

• Case Law: In Godfrey v. Watson [9], the Supreme Court held that mortgagees who have agreed to bear all expenses cannot recover under Section 72.

2. Balance Between Equity and Contractual Freedom

While Section 72 aims to protect the mortgagee, it also respects the mortgagor’s freedom to contract and limits claims where contractual agreements impose a different obligation on the mortgagee.

6.     Conclusion

Section 72 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair balance between the rights and obligations of mortgagees and mortgagors. By providing mortgagees with the right to claim reimbursement for necessary expenses incurred during the possession of the mortgaged property, the provision seeks to protect their security interests while ensuring that mortgagors are not unjustly deprived of their ownership rights. Judicial interpretations have further refined the scope of Section 72, emphasizing that only reasonable and necessary expenses can be claimed, thereby safeguarding the interests of both parties. The courts have consistently sought to uphold this provision, ensuring that mortgagees are not unfairly burdened while protecting mortgagors from any unjust enrichment.

Section 72 ensures that mortgagees in possession are not left financially vulnerable due to the responsibilities of property management. The provision covers expenses related to the preservation of the property, defending against third-party claims, and the renewal of leases, thereby acknowledging the mortgagee’s role as a custodian of the property. However, the provision also respects the autonomy of contractual agreements between mortgagees and mortgagors. This balance reflects the legal principle that contractual freedom should not be undermined while protecting mortgagees from bearing disproportionate financial risks. Courts have recognized that any claims made under Section 72 must be reasonable and directly related to the protection of the mortgaged property.

The practical implementation of Section 72 continues to provide a framework for mortgagees to assert their rights without overstepping their authority. Mortgagees are expected to act in good faith and demonstrate that the expenses incurred were necessary and reasonable. At the same time, mortgagors have the assurance that Section 72 does not entirely strip them of their ownership rights. The principle of equity underpins the provision, ensuring that both parties receive fair treatment. By clarifying the scope of reimbursement, courts have played an essential role in preventing misuse and ensuring that Section 72 functions as a mechanism for mutual protection rather than exploitation.

Looking forward, Section 72 remains a key provision in Indian property law, adapting to evolving legal standards and property practices. As mortgage-related transactions continue to grow in complexity, courts will continue to interpret Section 72 with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and obligations of mortgagees while preserving the equitable interests of mortgagors. The evolving jurisprudence around Section 72 ensures that property rights remain balanced, and this provision will likely continue to play a pivotal role in shaping property law in India.

 

[1] Perianna v. Marudainayagam, (1889) ILR 22 Mad 332.

[2] Umesh Chandra v Khulna Loan Co, (1907) ILR 34.

[3] Kadar Moideen v Nepean, (1899) ILR 26

[4] Venkata Satteya v. Mulibai, AIR 1955 AP 274.

[5] Farzand Ali v Mirza Saddiq, (1919) 22 OC 270.

[6] Syed Ibrahim v. Arumugathayee, (1915) ILR 38.

[7] Dalsing v. Sunder Kunwar, AIR 1944 Oudh 208.

[8] Midnapore Zamindary Co Ltd v Saradindu Mukhopadhaya, (1948) ILR 2.

[9] Godfrey v Watson, (1747) 3 Atk 517.