Section 68 of TPA: Mortgagee’s Rights to Recover Mortgage Money

1.      Introduction

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a crucial piece of legislation that governs various aspects of property transactions in India. Among its significant provisions, Section 68 of TPA plays a vital role in regulating the rights and obligations of mortgagees and mortgagors. A mortgage is a financial arrangement wherein a borrower (mortgagor) pledges their property as security for a loan taken from a lender (mortgagee).

Section 68 of TPA primarily addresses the remedies available to mortgagees for the recovery of mortgage money, emphasizing both the security interest and personal liability of the mortgagor. This provision aims to strike a balance between the rights of mortgagees to recover their dues and the obligations of mortgagors, ensuring that neither party is unfairly disadvantaged.

Categories Under Which Mortgagees Can Seek Personal Liability

Section 68 of TPA provides four categories where mortgagees can seek personal liability from the mortgagor. These categories include suits for mortgage money recovery based on personal covenants. They also cover cases where security is destroyed by accidental causes. Additionally, they address instances where security is impaired due to mortgagor default. Usufructuary mortgages are also included in these categories. The provision establishes mortgagees’ rights while placing limitations on unjust enrichment. It ensures mortgagees do not benefit unfairly at the mortgagors’ expense. The section facilitates smooth mortgage enforcement while protecting both parties’ interests.

Judicial interpretations of Section 68 of TPA have further shaped its practical applicability over the years. Various courts have examined when mortgagees can seek personal liability from mortgagors. They emphasize exhausting available security before using personal remedies. This interpretation ensures mortgagees use the security interest first. Mortgagees cannot seek repayment solely from mortgagors without utilizing the mortgage security. Consequently, Section 68 not only reflects the statutory framework but also demonstrates the evolution of mortgage law through case law.

Practical Implications for Property Transactions

The significance of Section 68 of TPA extends beyond mere legal principles; it holds practical implications for property transactions and financial dealings in India. Mortgage transactions form the backbone of real estate and lending practices, and disputes often arise concerning the enforcement of personal liability and the extent to which mortgagees can rely on Section 68 of TPA to recover mortgage money. Understanding the intricacies of this section is, therefore, crucial for both legal practitioners and individuals involved in property-related transactions. This analysis seeks to provide a comprehensive exploration of Section 68, its provisions, and its evolving interpretations in the context of Indian property law.

2.     Suit on Personal Covenant in section 68 of TPA

Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 68 of TPA deals with suits for the recovery of mortgage money based on the personal covenant of the mortgagor. A personal covenant is an agreement by the mortgagor to repay the debt, independent of the security provided. In this provision, the mortgagee retains the right to sue for the mortgage money personally, provided that the debt remains unpaid, irrespective of whether the mortgaged property still exists or not.

Judicial interpretations have evolved concerning this clause. Prior to the amendment of 1929, it was often argued that mortgagees could bypass the security and directly enforce the covenant, leading to unjust enrichment. The court in A Kumar v Sanjoga[1]. clarified that mortgagees must resort to the security first before seeking personal remedies under Section 68(1)(a). This was intended to prevent mortgagees from recovering the debt while retaining the security without discharging the debt.

A key decision from the Calcutta High Court further reinforced this interpretation, stating that a mortgagee cannot ignore the mortgage while enforcing the covenant. The dual right to pursue both remedies remains, but priority is given to enforcing the mortgage security. Post-amendment, the mortgagee is mandated to exhaust the security before seeking personal liability.

3.     Security Destroyed by Accidental Causes

Sub-section (1)(b) applies where the security has been destroyed by accidental causes—fire, flood, or other such events—without any default from the mortgagor. In such cases, the mortgagee has the right to sue the mortgagor for the mortgage money on the basis of the personal covenant.

The High Court in Pradeep Chand Lall v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. observed an important principle. If no default occurs, and external circumstances cause property loss, the mortgagee’s right to sue remains intact. Courts interpret “accidental causes” broadly, covering various unexpected events. These include natural disasters, fire, or state-led land acquisition, leading to property destruction.

However, the mortgagee must provide an opportunity for the mortgagor to replace the security within a reasonable time. The concept of “reasonable time” was upheld in several cases like State Bank of India v Krishna Embfastners, Pvt Ltd[3], where six months was regarded as a reasonable period. Failure to do so could invalidate the mortgagee’s right to sue under this provision.

4.     Security Impaired Due to Mortgagor’s Default in section 68 of TPA

Sub-section (1)(c) covers situations where the security is wholly or partially impaired due to the wrongful act or default of the mortgagor. In these cases, the mortgagee has the right to sue for the entire amount of the mortgage debt.

This clause applies when the mortgagor engages in wrongful acts. These include fraud, contractual breaches, or failure to clear prior encumbrances. Such actions reduce the security available to the mortgagee.

For example, in Kamalambal v. M. Purushotam Naidu, the court addressed fraudulent conduct. Selling the mortgaged property wrongfully deprived the mortgagee of security. This entitled the mortgagee to claim the entire debt personally.

The Privy Council further clarified in Miller v Runga Nath[5], that mere suspicion of defects in title does not suffice to trigger Section 68 of TPA (1)(c); there must be actual acts of default that impair the mortgage security. Breach of duties under Section 65 and 66 of the Act—such as failure to disclose existing encumbrances—renders the mortgagor personally liable.

5.     Usufructuary Mortgages and Section 68 of TPA

Section 68 of TPA (1)(d) applies to usufructuary mortgages, where the mortgagor delivers possession of the property and allows the mortgagee to enjoy its benefits until the debt is discharged. In such cases, the mortgagee retains possession and derives income from the property, while the mortgagor continues to hold title.

If the mortgagor fails to discharge the debt, the mortgagee can sue for personal liability under this provision.

Unlike conditional mortgages, the mortgagor does not regain possession upon repayment. Usufructuary mortgages involve a transfer of possession without loss of title.

The court in Pais v Mapanna[6], clarified that the personal liability of the mortgagor exists irrespective of any personal covenant.

In these cases, the mortgagee’s rights are reinforced by Section 68(1)(d), which ensures that non-discharge of debt leads to a personal remedy.

6.     Purchasers of Equity of Redemption and Section 68 of TPA

Section 68 of TPA states that personal liability does not pass to the purchaser of the equity of redemption. A purchaser who takes ownership without personal liability is not responsible for the original mortgagor’s debt. The Privy Council in Appasami v Virappa[7] held that personal liability runs with the property, not the land. The purchaser must indemnify the mortgagor only if they retain part of the sale consideration or agree expressly.

 

7.     Registration and Illegal Mortgages

Section 68 further clarify procedural and substantive aspects related to enforcement of mortgage rights. The right to sue under this section is not affected by the non-registration or non-attestation of the mortgage. This ensures that the mortgagee’s ability to seek personal liability is not contingent upon procedural formalities like registration, which are primarily meant for protecting third-party interests.[8]

It stipulates that if the mortgage is illegal or prohibited by law, then the personal covenant becomes unenforceable. In such cases, the mortgagee may only seek restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

8.     Conclusion

Section 68 of TPA, 1882, plays a pivotal role in the legal framework governing mortgages in India. It establishes the rights and obligations of mortgagees and mortgagors, particularly regarding the recovery of mortgage money. By outlining the circumstances under which personal liability can be sought, Section 68 ensures a balance between the interests of both parties, preventing unjust enrichment while securing the mortgagee’s ability to recover dues. The application of this section has been shaped by judicial interpretations, which emphasize the exhaustion of available security before pursuing personal liability. As such, Section 68 of TPA continues to be a fundamental provision, guiding property transactions and financial dealings in India.

Practical Relevance in Mortgage Disputes

The practical relevance of Section 68 of TPA is evident in the numerous property disputes that arise concerning mortgage transactions. Courts have consistently upheld the principle that mortgagees must rely on the available security first before seeking recovery from the mortgagor personally. This ensures that the mortgagor’s personal liability is limited to cases where the security has been rendered ineffective through their default or other circumstances specified under the section. The evolving case law further clarifies the application of Section 68 of TPA, contributing to a more structured and predictable legal environment for mortgage-related disputes.

In conclusion, Section 68 of TPA of the Transfer of Property Act is a cornerstone provision that ensures a fair balance between the rights of mortgagees and the protection of mortgagors. Its interpretation by courts has reinforced the necessity of exhausting security remedies before pursuing personal liability, enhancing legal certainty in property transactions. The provision remains critical in safeguarding the interests of both parties, facilitating a smooth enforcement of mortgage obligations, and contributing to the overall development of property law in India.

 

[1] A Kumar v Sanjoga, (1953) 32 ILR Pat 903.

[2] Pradeep Chand Lall v Grindlays Bank Ltd, AIR 1987 Cal 157.

[3] State Bank of India v Krishna Embfastners, Pvt Ltd, AIR 1998 Del 6.

[4] Kamalambal v M Purushotam Naidu, (1934) 67 Mad LJ 499.

[5] Miller v Runga Nath, (1885) ILR 12.

[6] Pais v Mapanna, AIR 1956 Mad. 128.

[7] Appasami v Virappa, (1906) ILR 29.

[8] Nityanand Ghose v Rajpur Chhaya Bani Cinema Ltd, AIR 1953 Cal 208