ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

RIGHT OF REDEMPTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

AUTHOR - SNEKHA VARADHAN* & DR .P. BRINDA**, LLM SCHOLAR* & ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR**, SCHOOL OF
EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TNDALU

BEST CITATION - SNEKHA VARADHAN & DR. P.BRINDA, RIGHT OF REDEMPTION UNDER TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY, ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW (ILE PLLR), 3 (1) of 2025, Pg. 01-06, APIS – 3920 – 0048 |
ISSN - 2584-1998

ABSTRACT

This article was written by Snekha Varadhan. The author of this article gives explanation about the
right of redemption under transfer of property 1882. The right of redemption is a legal mechanism that
allows a debtor or property owner to reclaim foreclosed or repossessed property by paying off the
outstanding debt or fulfilling specific legal requirements within a designated period. Additionally, the
article analyzes recent legal trends and case law interpretations that shape the modern application
of redemption rights. By providing a comparative analysis of different legal systems, this study aims
to offer a comprehensive understanding of how redemption rights balance creditor and debtor
interests while influencing foreclosure proceedings and property rights.

KEYWORDS : Right to redeem-mortgaged-repayment-get back-mortgagor

1. INTRODUCTION The mortgagor can exercise his right to redeem

The loan payment was secured by the within 30 years from the time of the accrued of
mortgaged property. The mortgagor is entitled the right to redeem," under Article 61(a) of the
to his property back upon payment of the Limitation Act, 1963. Moreover Section 27 read
amount borrowed plus interest once the together with Section 3 of the Limitation Act of
deadline for the repayment of the mortgagee's 1963 states that "the right in mortgaged
money is completed. The mortgagor's right is property is extinguished on the expiry of 30
referred as the Right of Redemption. No years above said. The mortgagor may always
condition that prevents redemption may limit claim the equity claim to redeem the property
the rights. The right can not be governed by any even if he has given the mortgagee a deadline
agreement to the contrary. Section 60 1
to do it and forfeits it in the event of default. In
mentions this right. The term 'Redeem' means to this case, the mortgagor will not be held to his
restore. contractual right to redeem. According to the TP
Act of 1882, which is referenced above, the
The maxim "once a mortgage is always a
mortgagor's advantage is known as the Equity
mortgage nothing but a mortgage" expresses
of Redemption.
the concept of clogs on redemption. "The
mortgagee shall not make any stipulation WHAT IS REDEMPTION UNDER MORTGAGE
which will prevent the mortgagor who has paid
The right of redemption is the right of the
principal, interest, and costs, from getting back
mortgagor to get back his mortgaged property
his mortgaged property in the condition in
once he paid the principal amount with due
which he parted with in it," explains the Lord
interest back to the mortgagee.
Devey's explanation of this maxim in Noakes &
Co vs. Rice. The transfer of property Act, 1882, SIMPLE EXPLAINATIOIN
section 60, recognises this concept. After completion of period a mortgagor has
1 The transfer of property act 1882

1|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

parties regarding redemption of mortgaged

property was in question, which was plainly
Mortgago taking away altogether, the mortgagor’s right to
r A redeem the mortgage after a specified period.

The Court held that the term that on the failure

of the mortgagor to redeem within the specified
Mortgage period of six months, he would lose his right to
e
do so and the mortgage deed was to be
deemed to be a deed of sale in favor of the
mortgagee, was clearly a clog on the equity of
redemption and as such invalid.
right to get the property back after giving Sampuran Singh & Others v. Smt. Niranjan
money to the mortgagee. Kaur & Others, 3In this case the Supreme Court
DEFINITION held that when there is no restriction in the
mortgage deed, mortgagors have a right to
Mortgage is a contract between this two person
redeem the mortgage from the very date when
that was Mortgagor and Mortgagee for an
the mortgage was executed.
immovable property which is kept as security to
the mortgagee by the mortgagor for he Bhandaru Ram (Deceased) through his L.R.
required sum amount of money as a loan. Rattan Lal v. Sukh Ram & Others,4 The period of
limitation is filing a suit for recovery of
WHAT IS RIGHT TO REDEMPTION
immovable property or redemption of
The mortgagor in return pays the money with usufructuary mortgages which have not fixed
interest until the fixed time period is Completed any time for repayment of mortgage money is
as per the contract and the right to redeem only 30 years as mentioned under Article 61 to the
arises after completion of such fixed time Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
period.
Section 60 has five different provisions
4. RIGHTS OF MORTGAGOR described

i. Right of mortgagor to redeem the property a. Right of Redemption.

[section 60]
b. Clog on Redemption.
ii. Right to redeem separately or simultaneously
C .partial redemption
(Section 61)
d. collateral advantage
4.1 RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
e. premature redemption.
As per section 60 of the transfer of the Act 1882
one of the important rights of the mortgagor is The section deals with the mortgage when the
the right to redeem the mortgaged property principal amount remains due. The redemption
after paying the loan amount. varies according to the form of mortgage.

Once the money has become due on the There are three kinds of primary kind of
specified date mortgagor has the right to get redemption:
back his property after paying the mortgage i.Delivery of the possession back to the
money to the mortgagee. mortgagor
Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal & Others, In 2

this case a condition in the agreement between 3 AIR 1999 SC 1047, (1999) 2 SCC 679 (Supreme Court of India, February
23, 1999).
4 AIR 2012 HP 50, 2012 (2) CTC 257 (Himachal Pradesh High Court,
2 AIR 1958 SC 770, 1959 SCR 509 (Supreme Court of India, April 15, 1958). January 6, 2012).

2|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

ii. Delivery of the title documents and the The collateral term in this case was not
mortgage deed. inherently clogging if it did not affect the right of
redemption directly.
iii. Returning the property in favor of the
mortgagor. KNOCKS v. ROULDS7 is a case that established
the principle of "once a mortgage, always a
6.EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
mortgage," meaning that a mortgagor
The borrower (mortgagor) has the legal right to (borrower) always has the right to redeem their
repay the loan and any associated costs to property by paying back the loan, and any
recover ownership of the property free from the clause in a mortgage agreement that attempts
mortgage. to restrict this right was considered a "clog on
Equity of redemption is a legal right that allows the equity of redemption" and it’s void; this case
the mortgagor to redeem their property after essentially solidified the idea that a mortgage is
paying back the mortgage, if some payments solely a security for a debt and cannot be used
were late. It's also called as the right of to permanently deprive the borrower of their
redemption or equitable right of redemption.5 property.

NOAKES & CO LTD v. RICE6 Extinguishment of right to redemption

Basic Facts: The holder of a 26-year lease on a 1. According to Section 61(a) of the Limitation
pub mortgaged it to a brewery, agreeing to Act, 1963, the right of
purchase liquor exclusively from the brewery for redemption is available only for a period of 30
the entire duration of the lease (a beer tie years from the date of
agreement), even after the loan was repaid.
redemption.
Issue for the Court:
(a) In Balkrishna v. Rangnatha, it was held that
1. When will collateral terms be the right to redeem can only be
considered to be clogging and fettering?
Abrogated by either
2. Whether the judgment of the lower
courts, affirming the validity of the (b) By Act of parties (or)
mortgage agreement, is consistent with
(i) Sale by Mortgagor
established principles of equity.
Held: The court ruled that any collateral (ii) By Foreclosure u/s 67
advantage that extended beyond the mortgage (iii) Redemption u/s 60
term infringed the mortgagor’s equity of
(iv) By a subsequent Agreement for additional
redemption. The covenant becomes void upon
loan.
redemption of the mortgage.
(c) By A Decree of Court.
Equity does not permit terms that impede or
prevent redemption of a mortgage. 7.CLOG ON REDEMPTION

Clogging the right to redeem by requiring “Clog on redemption" which means is a legal
continued obligations post- redemption is principle in property and mortgage law. It refers
impermissible. to any condition or provision in a mortgage
agreement that unfairly prevents or restricts the
5 In Salt. Marquess of Northamption, (1992) AC 11, Lord Bramwell mortgagor from redeeming their property after
defined the equity of redemption thus: repaying the mortgage debt.
“An equity of redemption is a right not given by the terms of the agreement
between the parties to it, but contrary to them to have back securities given
by a borrower to a lender on payment of principal and interest at a day after
that appointed for payment when by the terms of the agreement between the
parties the securities were to be absolute property of the creditor. This is now
legal right of debtor.
6 (1902) AC 24 ( HOUSE OF LORDS, DECEMBER 17,1901) 7 (1902) AC 24

3|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

Key Features of Clog on Redemption: was entitled to bold and enjoy it before the
mortgage. If he is prevented from doing so, that
1. Unreasonable Restrictions: Any clause in the
which he is entitled on redemption is prevented
mortgage that imposes unreasonable
and to constitute such prevention it is not
conditions or restrictions on the borrower’s right
necessary that the subject of the mortgage
to redeem.
should be directly charged with whatever
2. Equitable Relief: Courts often intervene to causes the prevention if he be so prevented in
strike down such clauses to ensure fairness. fact, the equity of redemption is affected by
3. Time Limitations: A clause that prevents what whether very aptly or not, has been always
redemption within a reasonable time may be termed as a clog.
considered a clog. Case Laws on Exceptions to Clog on
Santley v. Wilde8case of the facts are that the Redemption
owner of a lease of a theatre wanted to carry on Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam & Anr,
a theatre business there and took out a (1977) 3 SCC 247; AIR 1977 SC 774 (Supreme
mortgage of in order to do this, secured against Court of India, December 7, 1976). The only on
the lease, over five years. The mortgage also execution of the conveyance and registration of
required that she also paid one third of the net transfer of the mortgagor's interest by
profits to the lender until the end of the registered instrument that the mortgagor's right
mortgage term. And the issue before the court of redemption will be extinguished. The
was whether the term regarding sharing profits conferment of power to sell the without
as demanded by the mortgagee was a "clog" or intervention of the Court in a Mortgage Deed by
not. And the court in passing the judgement itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right
Lord Lindley said a mortgage in a conveyance to redemption. The extinction of the right of
of land or an assignment of chattels as a redemption has to be subsequent to the deed
security for the payment of a debt, or the conferring such power. The right of redemption
discharge of some other obligation for which it is not a extinguished at the expiry of the period.
is given. This is the idea of a mortgage, and the The equity of redemption is not extinguished by
security is redeemable un the payment or mere contract for the sale. The mortgagor's
discharge of such debt or obligation, any right to redeem will survive until there has been
provision to the contrary notwithstanding. That, completion of sale by the mortgagee by an
in my opinion, is the law. Any provision inserted registered deed.10
to prevent redemption on payment or
Jayasingh Dnyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. v.
performance of the debt or obligation for which
Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr., 11
The right of
the security was given is what is meant by a
redemption under a mortgage deed can come
clog or fetter on the equity of redemption, and is
to an end only in a manner known to law. Such
therefore void. It follows from this that once a
extinguishment of the right can take place by
mortgage always a mortgage
contract between the parties, by a merger or by
Samuel v. Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving
Corporation Ltd9 In Jarrah Timber & Wind 10 L.K. Trust v. EDC Ltd. & Others, (2011) 6 SCC 780; AIR 2011 SC 2060
Pasing Corporation Sarniel (1904 appeal es an (Supreme Court of India, May 10, 2011). The mortgagor under Indian law is
the owner who had parted with some rights of ownership and the right of
Irish case) Collins MR observed, "It is the right of redemption is the right which he exercises by virtue of his residuary
ownership to resume what he has parted with. In India this right of
a mortgagor of redemption by reason of the redemption, however, is statutory one. A right of redemption is an incident of
very common nature of a mortgage to get back a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists. The
judicial trend indicates that dismissal of an earlier suit for redemption whether
the subject of mortgage to hold and enjoy as he as abated or as withdrawn or in default would not debar the mortgagor from
filing a second suit for redemption so long as the mortgage subsists. This
right cannot be extinguished except by the act of parties or by decree of a
court
8 [1899] 2 Ch 474 (Court of Appeal, April 4, 1899). 11 (1985) 4 SCC 162; AIR 1985 SC 1646 (Supreme Court of India, July 17,
9 [1904] AC 323 (House of Lords, May 16, 1904). 1985).

4|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

statutory provision which debars the mortgager land back if the amount was paid back by the
from redeeming the mortgage. The mortgagor plaintiff.
right of redemption is exercised by the payment
The Bombay High Court held that the
or tender to the mortgagee at the proper time
transaction here was more in the nature of
and at the proper place of the mortgage
conditional sale and not an absolute sale by the
money. When it is extinguished by the act of
defendant.
parties, the act must take the shape and
observe the formalities which the law Smt. Rajamma and Others v. Sri B. Renuka
prescribes. A mortgage being a security for the Murthy, 14
the facts of the case were that there
debt, the right of redemption continues was a certain family property that was sold for
although the mortgagor fails to pay the debt at the payment of a prolonged family debt. The
the due date. Any provision inserted to prevent, possession of the property was delivered to the
evade or hamper redemption is void. purchasers. An undertaking was provided by
the mortgagors to the a mortgagee that they
8. MORTGAGE BY CONDITIONAL SALE [SECTION
would repay the entire amount within the
58 (C)
stipulated time frame that was 5 years and
A mortgage by conditional sale in redemption is ensure that the sale deed gets executed.
a type of mortgage agreement where the The Supreme Court in this case held that it was
borrower (mortgagor) transfers ownership of not a case of simple mortgage but was of
the property to the lender (mortgagee) with the conditional sale with an option to repurchase.
condition that the borrower has the right to
9 .PARTIAL REDEMPTION
"redeem" the property by repurchasing it,
usually by paying off the debt within a specified This means redeeming the property in parts or
period.12 in multiple transfers. This is void ab initio and
the right of redemption cannot be exercised in
In Vithal Tukaram Kadam and Another v.
multiple transfers for the same mortgage.
Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale and Others,
13
the facts revolved around a loan which was Partial redemption refers to the process of
taken by the plaintiff in the given case and if in redeeming only a portion of a financial
case the plaintiff fails to repay the amount then instrument, such as bonds, shares, or other
the plaintiff would sell it. Apparently the types of securities, rather than redeeming the
borrowed amount for loan was 700 rupees while entire amount.15
the plaintiff sold the land for 3500 Rupees. The However Partial redemption usually not
very agreement for sale had a clause of permitted . In some circumstances, such as
reconveyance embodied in it upon the virtue of when several properties are mortgaged jointly
the clause the defendant demanded Rupees or when a jointly owned property is mortgaged,
3500 along with interest affecting relationship of it might be possible.
the debtor and the creditor. The defendant was
Bhaiya Raghunath Singh and Others v.
well aware of the nature of the transaction and
Musammat Hansraj Kunwar and Others, This 16
he knew that he would be obliged to return the
appeal from the High Court at Allahabad arises
in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and
further charge, the appellants being the hairs of
12 Prakasam Alias Padmini v. Rajambal and Others, decided on 20 March some of the original mortgagees. The relevant
1974, reported in AIR 1975 Mad 282. The facts of the case are that the
document was ascribed as sale deed but the stamp paper but the stamp paper facts leading up to the present litigation must
was provided by the transferor while the price provided was much lesser than
the actual price of the property. A specific condition was attached that post
the payment of the principal’ amount the property shall be reconvened.It was 14 Regular Second Appeal No. 929 of 2011, decided on September 21, 2015,
held by the Madras High Court that the transaction was not an outright sale by the Karnataka High Court.
rather was a mortgage by conditional sale. 15 Gopal Singh v. Massa singh, (1997) 11 scc 429.
13 Decided on August 9, 2017, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 172 and AIR 2017 Parma nand v. Babu Ram, AIR 1986
SC 3853. 16 Decided on July 19, 1934, reported in (1934) 36 BOMLR 1189

5|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

first be stated. The mortgage and further 3) If the mortgagee permits or releases a part of
charge are both dated 22nd June 1864. By the mortgaged property to one of the mortgagors.
mortgage certain shares in 5 villages were BLACKACRE
mortgaged by way of conditional sale, the A
mortgagees being placed in possession, with no
WHITEACRE
liability to account for mesne profits. The
principal money was repayable at the end of
three years. A further principal sum was secured It was single instrument.They can’t get partial
by the further charge. In the year 1892 the redemption.
mortgagor instituted a redemption suit
If it was different instrument they can claim
alleging- that nothing was due under the
redemption.
securities, and claiming to be put into
possession of the shares in the 5 villages, or, if 10. COLLATERAL ADVANTAGE
the Court should find that any sum was due, The mortgagee is entitled to receive interest
that it might order redemption subject to the as a part of mortgage deed. Any benefit other
payment of such sum. The result of that suit was than receipts of interest, principle amount and
that as to the shares in 2 of the villages it was costs are deemed to be benefit of collateral
decided that (for reasons which need not here advantage .Such collateral advantages can be
be stated) there was no right of redemption any enjoy only till the completion of the mortgage
longer existing, and that as to the shares in the deed. If the mortgagee enjoys such advantages
other 3 villages the plaintiff could redeem them after the completion of the deed.It is considered
on payment of the proper proportion of the a clog and deemed to be void . collateral
mortgage money, viz. A decree dated 25th benefits are permitted only if they are fair.
September 1896 was accordingly made in the
following terms : Its only a benefit in addition and should not be
treated as a benefits of multiplication. Court of
"It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is equity has the power to stuck down any
entitled to a decree for possession by unconscionable or oppressive terms in the
redemption of mortgage in the following terms, morgageded.
viz., t15th November 1896, that if he will pay the
said sum he will get all the costs, except the The rule is that such a stipulation will not be
pleader's fee incurred by him in this Court, and enforceable if it’s
that in case of default his case will stand (1) Unfair and unconscionable, or17
dismissed and the costs incurred by the (2) In the nature of penalty clogging the
defendants will be charged against him." equity of redemption or
An appeal therefrom was dismissed with costs. (3) Is inconsistent with or repugnant to the
No payment of the mortgag contractual and equatible right to
redeem.
Exceptions to partial redemption CITYLAND & PROPERTY (HOLDINGS) LTD v.
The exceptions to partial redemption are as DABRAH18
follows : Facts: The plaintiffs, Cityland, sold a house to a
1) A share of the equity of redemption should be former tenant. The tenant paid a cash and took
acquired by the Mortgagee. out a mortgage from the plaintiffs for the

2) In case of more than one Mortgagees, the

17 MULTISERVICE BOOKBINDING LTD v. MARDEN (1979) CH 84
acquisition should be by all. The plaintiff, Fairclough, was a tenant of a hotel with 17½ years remaining
on the lease. The defendant, Swan Brewery, had lent money to Fairclough,
mortgagees. If not, the Co-mortgagee is using the lease as collateral. The mortgage agreement stated that Fairclough
could not redeem the mortgage until six weeks before the lease’s end.
entitled to bring the whole property to sale. 18 (1968) CH 166

6|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

remaining over six years. There was no provision Issues: The common law treats a mortgage as
for the payment of interest. Instead the a contract and so the right to redeem, or pay
mortgage contained a premium of that off, the loan depends on the contract terms.
represented 19% interest per year, or 57% of the However, in equity any unfair burdens imposed
whole loan. The mortgage contained a term on the borrower that continue after the date of
that in the event of a default the was payable. redemption are treated with disfavour as a
‘clog’ on the equity of redemption. The
Issues :The defendant sought equitable relief
respondents claimed that the floating charge
against the premium charged on the grounds
was the same as a mortgage and that the term
that it was an unreasonable collateral
amounted to a clog on the equity of
advantage. The plaintiffs argued that Kreglinger
redemption.
v New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Co Ltd19
meant there were no public policy grounds to Decision: The House of Lords agreed that the
oppose the existence of a collateral advantage. doctrine concerning mortgages also applied to
This was a commercial transaction and the floating charges. The option to buy sheepskins
defendant was not poor or ignorant. was stipulated to be for five years. The option
was not a clog but a collateral advantage
Decision: The court held that it would grant
which survived after the mortgage was paid off.
relief against a collateral advantage if was
It was not part of the charge, but a condition
unconscionable, paying particular attention to
precedent to lending the money. Lord Parker
the size of the advantage. This meant the
said that a collateral advantage would be
advantage could not be unfair or unreasonable.
struck down if it was unfair and unconscionable,
Reasonableness and fairness would depend on
a penalty clogging the equity of redemption, or
the circumstances. The agreement imposed an
was inconsistent with or repugnant to the right
extremely high premium rate rather than
to redeem. The option did not attach to any
interest, amounting to 57% of the loan. The
property and was a commercial agreement
plaintiffs could not justify charging such a high
negotiated at arms’ length by business people.
amount in lieu of interest. Also, in case of default
Therefore, the term was upheld.
the entire amount became due. This was
unconscionable. Consequently, the court used Fairclough v. Swan Brewery Co. Ltd21
its inherent jurisdiction to rewrite the
Facts :The plaintiff, Fairclough, was a tenant of a
agreement, and the borrower was allowed to
hotel with 17½ years remaining on the lease.
repay the loan together with 7% interest, which
was reasonable. The defendant, Swan Brewery, had lent money
to Fairclough, using the lease as collateral.
Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat & Cold
Storage Co. Ltd 20 The mortgage agreement stated that
Fairclough could not redeem the mortgage until
Facts: The appellants loaned money to the
six weeks before the lease's end.
respondent meat company by way of a floating
charge over the company’s assets. One of the Legal Issue: The question was whether the delay
terms was that for five years the appellants in the contractual redemption date was a
would have the option of buying sheepskins restriction on the equitable right to redeem, and
from the meat company. The company paid off if it could be enforced.
the loan after only two years. The appellants Judgment: ruled that the delay in the
sought to exercise their option for the whole five contractual right to redeem was invalid as it
year period. rendered the equitable right to redeem
meaningless. Since the equitable right only

19 [1914] AC 25
20 (1914) AC 25 21 [1912] AC 565

7|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

came into effect after the contractual date had has been passed by both the Courts below. The
passed, the mortgage was essentially property in suit is an open plot bearing Tikka No.
irredeemable. The court decided that 17, Lot No. 11, measuring 34 sq. yds. It was
Fairclough should be allowed to repay the debt mortgaged on 9-11-1384, for Rs. 176, The
early, and the clause delaying redemption was agreement between the parties was that the
null and void. mortgagor was to redeem the mortgage 99
years after its execution and the mortgagee
11.PREMATURE REDEMPTION
was given full authority to build any structure on
Premature redemption of a mortgage, also this plot after spending any amount he liked.
known as early repayment, is when you pay off The mortgagor undertook to repay this amount
your mortgage before the end of its term. to the mortgagee at the time of redemption.
Premature redemption under a mortgage, also When the suit was filed by the plaintiffs to
known as early repayment, means paying off redeem this mortgage, the mortgagee pleaded
your mortgage loan before the agreed-upon that the claim was premature; 99 years had not
term, and it may involve an early repayment still passed and so the amount under the
charge or fee to compensate the lender for lost mortgage could not be said to have become
interest. due within the meaning of Section 60, T. P. Act.
This was the contention of the mortgagee. The
Instead of paying off your mortgage over the
Courts below have held that the two material
agreed-upon period (e.g., 15 or 30 years), you
stipulations in the mortgage amounted to a
choose to pay off the entire outstanding loan
clog on the equity of redemption and so they
amount sooner.
have allowed the plaintiffs to redeem the
Many mortgage lenders charge an ERC if you mortgage and passed a preliminary decree in
repay the loan early, as they may lose out on that behalf. In this appeal Mr. Patel has
the interest income they would have earned contended that the Courts below should have
over the remaining loan term. held that the suit was premature.

ERCs are designed to compensate lenders for 12.SUGGESTION

the financial impact of losing the anticipated
Redemption under a mortgage refers to the
interest income from the mortgage.
process by which a borrower can reclaim their
ERCs are often calculated as a percentage of property after defaulting on a mortgage loan,
the outstanding loan amount or as a fixed fee, typically by paying off the outstanding debt.
as outlined in your mortgage agreement. Here are some suggestions for navigating the
redemption process:
Before deciding to pay off your mortgage early,
review your mortgage agreement to 1. Review the Mortgage Terms: Understand the
understand if an ERC applies and how it's specific terms of your mortgage, including the
calculated. redemption period, interest rates, fees, and any
penalties for late payment or foreclosure.
Besides ERCs, you may also encounter
redemption administration charges or other 2. Pay Off the Outstanding Debt: Redemption
fees associated with early repayment. generally involves paying the full amount of the
outstanding mortgage debt, including any
Vadilal Chhaganlal Soni And Ors. vs Gokaldas
interest, fees, and penalties. If you're able to do
Mansukh And Ors.22
this, it will stop the foreclosure process and
1. This is an appeal by the mortgagees against allow you to retain ownership of the property.
the preliminary decree for redemption which
3. Negotiate with the Lender: If you're unable to
pay the full amount, consider negotiating with
22 6 November, 1952

8|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

the lender for a payment plan, loan fundamental importance in preventing

modification, or a reduction in the amount due. oppressive or unconscionable practices.
Lenders may be willing to work with you to avoid
However, the exercise of this right is subject to
foreclosure.
certain limitations. The mortgagor must act
4. Explore Refinancing: If you're eligible, within the prescribed time frame, as failure to
refinancing your mortgage might allow you to redeem within the stipulated period may result
pay off the existing loan with a new one, in foreclosure, extinguishing their rights.
potentially with better terms or a longer Additionally, while the right of redemption is
repayment period. generally protected, contractual terms and
legal provisions may impose restrictions or
5. Seek Legal Advice: If you're in financial
conditions, which both parties must adhere to.
difficulty or facing foreclosure, it’s advisable to
consult with a legal professional who specializes In conclusion, the right of redemption under a
in mortgage law to understand your rights and mortgage embodies the balance between the
options for redemption. rights and obligations of both mortgagor and
mortgagee. It ensures that borrowers are given
6. Consider a Short Sale or Deed in Lieu of
a fair chance to recover their property while
Foreclosure: If you're unable to redeem the
enabling lenders to secure their financial
property, you might explore alternatives like a
interests. This equitable doctrine underscores
short sale (selling the property for less than the
the importance of fairness, transparency, and
mortgage balance) or deed in lieu of
adherence to legal principles in mortgage
foreclosure (voluntarily transferring the property
transactions.
to the lender).
14. REFERENCES
7. Check for State-Specific Laws: Redemption
rights vary by jurisdiction. In some areas, BIBLIOGRAPTHY
borrowers may have a statutory right to redeem
Bharuka, G.C., Mulla The Transfer of Property Act,
the property even after foreclosure. It's
New Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, Page
important to know your legal rights in your state
No. 633.
or country.
Tripathi, G.P. Dr., The Transfer of Property Act,
13. CONCLUSION
New Delhi, Central Law Publications, 2003, Page
The concept of redemption under a mortgage is No. 267.
a cornerstone of property and contract law,
Sinha, R.K. Dr.,The Transfer of Property Act,
reflecting the principle of equity and fairness in
Allahabad, Central Law Agency, 2015, Page No.
financial dealings. It provides the mortgagor
293.
with the opportunity to regain ownership of their
property upon fulfilling the obligations set forth 15. WEBLIOGRAPHY
in the mortgage agreement, typically through 1.
the repayment of the principal amount, interest, http://www.investopia.com/personal.finance/ho
and any associated costs. me.ownership.
This right of redemption serves as a safeguard 2. http://www.legalbites.in/right-of-redemption/
against the permanent loss of property due to
3.Www.economic.indiatimes.com/redemption-
financial distress, ensuring that the mortgagor
rights-in-a-mortgage-
is not unduly penalized or subjected to unjust
process/articleshow/2625496.cms
enrichment by the mortgagee. Courts have
consistently upheld the mortgagor's equitable 4.
right to redemption, emphasizing its Www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/trans
ferofproperty.

9|Page Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/

 ILE PROPERTY AND LAND LAW REVIEW Published by

VOLUME 3 AND ISSUE I OF 2025 Institute of Legal Education

APIS – 3920 – 0048 | ISSN - 2584-1998 https://iledu.in

5.
Www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/haryana/1913/1913HR2.
pdf

6.Critical analysis of mortgagor's right of

redemption - iPleaders

10 | P a g e Journal Home Page – https://pllr.iledu.in/