AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkataramana Rao, J.—The question in this second appeal is when a sub-mortgagee sues, for sale of the properties mortgaged to his
mortgagor, that is, the original mortgagee, impleading the original mortgagor, should he pay court-fee on the amount due under the original
mortgage or on the amount due under the sub-mortgage? Ordinarily a sub-mortgagee''s right just like any other mortgagee is to enforce his
mortgage and bring to sale the property mortgaged to him, that is, the interest of the mortgagee in the property mortgaged to the latter. But the law
permits him to enforce sale of his said property under circumstances and conditions which would entitle the original mortgagee to bring the
properties to sale. To such a suit the original mortgagor should be made a party. The principle on which this is allowed is that a sub-mortgagee''s
claim is by a derivative title from the mortgagee and he is in fact an assignee of the mortgagee. When the mortgagee effects a mortgage of his
mortgage interest he is creating a transfer of his right as mortgagee though not absolutely. Therefore when a sub-mortgagee sues for sale of the
property he is enforcing the right of the original mortgagee. The amount claimed by him is the amount due under the said mortgage though as sub-
mortgagee he is duly entitled to a portion of the said amount. He is in effect asking for a decree for the amount due on the original mortgage and in
default the property should be brought to sale. No doubt in such a suit accounts between the original mortgagor and the original mortgagee on the
one hand and the latter and sub-mortgagee on the other are taken once for all and the respective claims of the three parties are adjusted and
settled at the same time. See Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Ramachandra Vacha Mahali Thurai v. Venkatachallam Chetty (1896) 6 M.L.J. 235 : ILR
20 Mad. 35. But this does not alter the nature of the claim. A reference to the Form No. II of Appendix D to the Civil Procedure Code, which
provides for a decree in a case where the sub-mortgagee sues for sale of the property, renders the position very clear. A decree is passed on the
basis of the original mortgage and the principal, interest and costs payable are calculated as if a suit was instituted by the original mortgagee, and on
payment into Court of the said sum so declared to be due to the original mortgagee by the original mortgagor, the sub-mortgagee is at liberty to
apply for the payment of the amount due to him. It is thus clear that the amount claimed in the suit is the amount due to the original mortgagee. u/s
7, Clause (1) of the Court-Fees Act, the court-fee has to be paid on the amount claimed. It is contended that the sub-mortgagee is entitled only to
claim the amount due on his mortgage and he cannot claim more and therefore he cannot be made to pay more court-fee by virtue of the fact he is
asking for sale of the property. This contention proceeds on the misconception of the right the sub-mortgagee is enforcing in the suit. The property
mortgaged to him is the original mortgagee''s interest and ordinarily he can only claim a sale of that interest for the realisation of the amount due on
his sub-mortgage and if he was therefore praying only for this relief, the amount claimed by him in the suit would be the amount due on his sub-
mortgage in which case the court-fee will be on that basis. But when he is asking for the sale of the property the amount claimed by him is as
assignee of his mortgagor the amount due to the latter and it is only after getting a decree for the same, he gets a subsidiary relief for the payment of
the amount due to him. I am therefore of opinion that the court-fee payable by a sub-mortgagee asking for a sale of the property mortgaged to the
original mortgagee is on the amount due and payable in respect of the original mortgage and not on the amount due and payable in respect of the
sub-mortgage. The property mortgaged to the appellant in this appeal comprised two sets of properties : (1) A schedule properties wherein his
mortgagor had an absolute interest and (2) B schedule properties wherein he had the interest of a mortgagee. In so far as the appellant prayed for
the sale of B schedule properties, the view of the lower Courts that he should pay the court-fee on the amount due and payable in respect of the
original mortgage is correct; and the second appeal therefore fails.
JUDGMENT
After I delivered judgment in this case last week, Mr. S. Narasimha Aiyangar submitted that his client may be permitted to pay the deficit court-
fee and that the issue as to the amount payable under the original mortgage may be directed to be determined and I directed the office not to issue
the decree and to have this matter posted to be spoken to. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides I vary my prior order and give leave to
the appellant to pay the deficit court-fee in regard to the relief claimed in respect of the B schedule properties; and on payment of the said fee the
Court of the District Munsiff of Tanjore is hereby directed to determine the issue relating to thdischarge raised in issue No. 2 and give the
appropriate relief to the plaintiff. The case is therefore remanded for disposal to the District Munsiff''s Court of Tanjore. The appellant will pay
costs of the respondents in this second appeal. Time for payment of the necessary court-fee will be one month from the date of the receipt of the
order by the District Munsiff of Tanjore.