Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NARAIN
VYAS,UNIVERSITY
A PROJECT REPORT
ON
Mortgaged property
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED BY:
TO:
Dhanistha meena
(ba.llb, 5th semester)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I feel highly elated to work on this dynamic and highly important topic that is Mortgage
and Its Various Types. This topic instantly drew my attention and attracted me to research on
it.
So, I hope I have tried my level best to bring in new ideas and thoughts regarding the
basics of this topic. Not to forget the deep sense of regard and gratitude to my faculty adviser,
who played the role of a protagonist. Last but not the least; I thank all the members of the
JNVU and all others who have helped me in making this project a success.
Contents
1. Acknowledgement
2. Introduction
3. Defination and nature of mortgage
4. Forms of mortgages
5. Rights of mortgager
6. Rights of mortgagee
7. Case laws
8. Conclusion
FORMS OF MORTGAGES
Section 58 of the transfer of Property Act enumerates six kinds of mortgages:
(1) Simple mortgage.
(2) Mortgage by conditional sale.
(3) Usufructuary mortgage.
(4) English mortgage.
(5) Mortgage Ly deposit of title deeds.
(6) Anomalous mortgage.
(1) Simple Mortgage
In a simple mortgage, the mortgager does not deliver the possession of the mortgaged
property. He binds himself personally to pay the mortgage money and agrees either
expressly or impliedly, that in case of his failure to repay, the mortgagee shall have the
right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold and apply the sale proceeds in payment
of mortgage money.
The essential feature of the simple mortgage is that the mortgagee has no power to sell the
property without the intervention of the court. The mortgagee can:
(i) apply to the court for permission to sell the mortgaged property, or
(ii) file a suit for recovery of the whole amount without selling the property.
The sale shall become absolute if the mortgager fails to repay the amount on a
certain date.
(iv)The mortgagee has no right of sale but he can sue for foreclosure.
Foreclosure means the loss of right possessed by the mortgager to redeem the mortgaged
property. The mortgagee has the right to institute a suit for a decree so that the mortgager
will be absolutely debarred from his right to redeem the property. The right to foreclosure
arises when the time fixed for repayment expires and the mortgager fails to repay the
mortgage money. Without the fore closure order the mortgagee will not become the owner
of the property.
(3) Usufructuary Mortgage
Under this form of mortgage, the mortgager delivers possession of the property or binds
himself to deliver possession of the property to the mortgagee. The mortgagee is
authorized to retain the possession until the debt is repaid. The mortgager reserves the
right to recover the property when the money is repaid.
The essential feature of this form of mortgage is that the mortgagee is entitled to receive
rents and profits relating to the mortgaged property till the loan is repaid and appropriate
the same in lieu of interest or in repayment of the loan or both.
The mortgager is not personally liable to repay the mortgage money. So the mortgagee
cannot sue the mortgager for repayment. He can neither sue foreclosure nor sue for sale of
the mortgaged property; the only remedy for the mortgagee is to remain in possession of
the property and pay himself out of the rents or profits of the mortgaged property. Since
there is no time limit he has to wait for a very long time to recover his dues.
(4) English Mortgage
The English mortgage has the following characteristics:
ii.
There must be deposit of title deeds, are the title deeds should be deposited as security
for the debt.
RIGHTS OF MORTGAGER
Right of MortgagerRights of Redemption: The mortgager has a right to redeem the mortgaged property
provided:
a. he-pays the mortgage money on due date at the proper place and time,
b.
The right of redemption has not been terminated by an act of the parties or by decree
of a court.
The mortgager who has redeemed the mortgage is entitled to the following rights:
Case Law
1. Mortgage Corporation v Shaire [2001] Ch 743 is an English land law case relating to
the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Facts: Mr Marvin Fox and Marsha Shaire lived at 74 Winchmore Hill Road, London N14 as
joint tenants. Mr. Fox died in 1992, and it transpired he had forged Mrs. Shaires signature,
and mortgaged the property to Mortgage Corporation. It was accepted their charge was valid
against his share. However, payments were not met and the bank applied for a possession
order under TLATA 1996 section 14. Mrs. Shaire argued that under section 15 her interest
should prevail over those of the creditors.
Judgment
Neuberger J held that Parliament intended with TOLATA 1996 s 15 to replace trusts for sale
with trusts of land, and thus give the court more discretion and 'to tip the balance somewhat
more in favor of families and against banks and other charges'. The interest of the chargee
6
Instead, the claimant's interest should be converted to a loan for Mrs Shaire to pay off over
time. If she could not meet the requirements of the loan, then the court would order a sale, but
only after consideration had been given to properties available to Mrs Shaire with the money
that would be realised upon sale of the house. The court also held that Mrs Shaire would
never have intended for Mr Fox to have a 50% interest in the property, and therefore set his
share at 25%.
2. Matthews v. Wallwyn is usually much relied upon by those who maintain the infirmity of
the assignee's title. In that case, the mortgage was given to secure the payment of a
nonnegotiable bond. The mortgagee assigned the bond and mortgage fraudulently and
thereafter received large sums which should have been credited upon the debt. The assignee
sought to enforce the mortgage for the full amount specified in the bond. The Lord
Chancellor was at first troubled by the consideration that the mortgage deed purported to
convey the legal title, and seemed inclined to think that might take the case out of the rule of
liability which would be applied to the bond if standing alone. He finally came to a different
conclusion, holding the mortgage to be a mere security. He said, finally:
"The debt therefore is the principal thing, and it is obvious that if an action was brought on
the bond in the name of the mortgagee, as it must be, the mortgagor shall pay no more than
what is really due upon the bond; if an action of covenant was brought by the covenantee, the
account must be settled in that action. In this Court, the condition of the assignee cannot be
better than it would be at law in any mode he could take to recover what was due upon the
assignment."
The principle is distinctly recognized that the measure of liability upon the instrument
secured is the measure of the liability chargeable upon the security. The condition of the
assignee cannot be better in law than it is in equity.
6
CONCLUSION