Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Muhammad Mohideen Rowther v. N.N.H. Mohammad Mohideen Rowther

Madras High Court

Jan 2, 1958

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This second appeal and a memorandum of objections arise from the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. No. 8 of 1954, which modified the decree and judgment of the District Munsif of Satlur in O.S. No. 209 of 1952.

The material facts as set out in the opinion are: Mussafar Rowther and his son Muhammad Sultan executed a mortgage in favour of Hameed Rowther (father of defendants 1 to 3) for Rs. 272 on 1-8-1930 (Ex. A-1). The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagors by instrument dated 10-7-1952 (Ex. A-4) for Rs. 300 and filed a suit for redemption (the suit out of which this second appeal arises). Defendants 2 and 3 disclaimed any interest in the mortgaged property.

The narrow controversy before the Court on this second appeal was whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgaged property by paying the amount mentioned in Ex. A-1 alone, or whether the plaintiff must also pay the mortgagee's costs of repairs (assessed at Rs. 1,000 by the District Munsif and upheld by the Subordinate Judge). The works in question were carried out by the first defendant (the mortgagee), under Municipal licence (Ex. B-3), and the record contains accounts and bills (Ex. B-35, B-36, B-37) and evidence including the testimony of D.W.5 (a mason) and the Municipal Engineer's estimate (D.W.4).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgaged property by paying only the amount specified in Ex. A-1, or whether the plaintiff must also pay the mortgagee's costs of repairs (estimated at Rs. 1,000) incurred by the mortgagee.
Whether the works carried out by the mortgagee constitute "repairs" recoverable under Sections 72 and 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, or "improvements" falling within Section 63A (and therefore subject to the limits and conditions set out in that section).

Arguments of the Parties

Mortgagee (First Defendant)'s Arguments

The mortgagee asserted that expenditure (estimated at Rs. 1,000) had been incurred in carrying out works on the hypothecated house, under Municipal licence, and that these works were covered by the covenant in Ex. A-1. The covenant includes an undertaking (quoted in the opinion) that the mortgagee would carry out repairs and that the mortgagor would effect repairs at the mortgagee's expense and the mortgagee would pay as per repair accounts when redeeming.
Evidence for the expenditure included the Municipal Engineer's estimate, the account of expenses (Ex. B-35), bills for building material (Ex. B-36, B-37), and witness testimony (including a mason, D.W.5).

Other Parties' Positions (Asstated in the Opinion)

The plaintiff had purchased the equity of redemption and filed the suit for redemption. The precise formulation of the plaintiff's legal submissions is not recited in detail in the opinion, but the contested question reflects the plaintiff's position that redemption should be effected by payment of the mortgage-money as per Ex. A-1 (without payment of the claimed repair/improvement costs).
Defendants 2 and 3 disclaimed any interest in the mortgaged property (a fact recorded in the opinion).
The opinion notes a cross-objector and records that the "contention of the cross-objector is devoid of merits", but the opinion does not set out the cross-objector's submissions in detail.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Arunachella v. Sithayee Ammal, ILR 19 Mad 327	Cited as authority that the head of "repairs" is included in sums which a mortgagee may add to the principal under Section 72.	Used to support the proposition that costs of repairs may be added to the principal money under S.72.
Ibrahim v. Arumugathayee, AIR 1916 Mad 859	Also cited in relation to Section 72 and the inclusion of repair costs as allowable sums.	Relied upon together with Arunachella to show repairs can be added to principal under S.72 where appropriate.
Shiva Devi v. Jam Heggade, ILR 15 Mad 290	Illustrates the priority of a mortgagee-in-possession to make necessary repairs out of rents and profits in the absence of contract (section 76 principles).	Applied to explain that a mortgagee-in-possession's liability to make necessary repairs is paramount to the extent of the balance of rents and profits after specified deductions.
Sheo Nandan v. Mohammed Khalik, AIR 1929 All 777	Explains that a mortgagee is not required to spend beyond necessary repairs from his own pocket; if he does spend his own money he cannot claim repayment under S.76 but may add expenditure to principal under S.72 if incurred for preservation.	Used to clarify limits of S.76 and the interplay with S.72 when mortgagee spends from own funds.
Krishnamurthy Sheity v. Abdul Khadar, AIR 1956 Mys 14	Stated that improvements must be reasonable relative to the nature and value of the estate; to prevent the mortgagee from unduly clogging the right of redemption.	Referred to for the proposition that improvements should be reasonable and not used to obstruct the mortgagor's right of redemption.
Sultan Khan v. Hari, AIR 1956 Bhopal 13	Shows that the right to improvements/costs is subject to any contract between parties.	Applied to note that contractual terms can render a mortgagor liable for improvement costs even if they would not fall under S.63A otherwise.
Chedilal v. Babu Nandan, AIR 1944 All 204	Similar principle: rights to improvement costs depend on contract between parties.	Used alongside other authorities to underscore the effect of contractual agreement on liability for improvements.
Sundaram v. Valia Mannadiar, AIR 1947 Mad 197	Held that where mortgagee seeks large amount for improvements he must establish by indubitable evidence both the fact of improvement and the actual expenses incurred.	Relied upon to stress the mortgagee's duty to prove improvements and expenses when claiming large sums.
Nijalingappa v. Chanbasawa, ILR 43 Bom 69 (AIR 1918 Bom 84)	Held that mortgagee may recover reasonable and proper costs of making lasting improvements but courts must be on guard against extravagant or unfounded claims.	Used to support that reasonable improvements may be recoverable but require scrutiny of bona fides and fairness.
Ramappa v. Yellappa, AIR 1928 Bom. 150	Illustrates refusal of claims where expenditure on improvements was grossly disproportionate to mortgage (five times the mortgage amount).	Noted by the Court as an example where a large claim for improvements was disallowed; the Court observed the decision's limited helpfulness because its reasoning was not fully indicated.
Dnyanu Laxman v. Fakira Ebram, AIR 1921 Bom 250	Referenced in connection with limits on improvement claims (background to Ramappa).	Cited to show earlier authority that influenced later refusals of disproportionate improvement claims.
Ram Asray v. Hira Lal, AIR 1949 All 681	Held that demolition of a kuchcha building and construction of a new pacca building without mortgagor's consent is an "improvement" and, absent contract, mortgagor is entitled to such improvement on redemption (i.e., mortgagor not liable to pay for it except as provided by S.63A(2)).	Applied to illustrate that large-scale reconstruction constitutes improvement and ordinarily cannot be charged to mortgagor on redemption unless falling within S.63A(2) or contractually agreed.
Kukaji v. Misrilal, AIR 1952 Madh-Bha 6; Mahommed Baba v. Mukhti, AIR 1953 J & K 14; Hamappa v. Raman Gouda, AIR 1956 Bom. 575	These cases are cited among authorities that discuss the distinction between repairs and improvements and mortgagor's liability.	Referred to as corroborative authority on the legal treatment of improvements and mortgagor's rights on redemption.
Inglis v. Buttery (1878) 3 A.C. 552; Creg v. Planque (1936) 1 K.B. 669; Lister v. Lane and Nesham (1893) 2 QB 212; Lurcoit v. Wakely (1911) 1 K.B. 905; London Corporation v. Great Western and Metropolitan Rly. Co. (1910) 2 Ch. 314; Hewitt v. Rowlands (1924) 93 L.J.K.B. 1080; Belcher v. M'Intosh (1839) 8 C & P 720; Doherty v. Allman (1878) 3 A.C. 709; Sandon v. Hooper (1843) 12 LJ Ch 309	These English (and some other foreign) authorities were cited in the lexicon/treatise material to explicate meanings of "repair" and "improvement" and the limits of covenants to repair.	The Court cited these authorities and the lexicographic extracts as background to define repair vs improvement and to support the conclusion that while repairs restore, improvements enhance value; they help explain the boundaries of what is recoverable from mortgagor.
Good Year Shoemachinery Co. v. Jackson; Santacruz v. Brodrick; Vincent v. Froelich (U.S. decisions)	Quoted in connection with lexicon/treatise definitions distinguishing repair from improvement and illustrating American judicial characterizations.	Referenced as part of the lexicon/treatise survey to inform meaning of terms; used as background rather than decisive binding authority.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's legal analysis proceeded in the following steps, as presented in the opinion:

Identification of the narrow contest: whether the plaintiff must pay only the mortgage sum in Ex. A-1 or must also pay Rs. 1,000 assessed as the mortgagee's costs of works on the mortgaged house.
The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions of the Transfer of Property Act: primarily Section 72 (permitting a mortgagee to spend money necessary for preservation and to add such money to principal in absence of contract to the contrary), Section 76 (liability of mortgagee in possession to make necessary repairs out of rents and profits subject to specified deductions), and Section 63A (conditions under which a mortgagee may be entitled to costs of an improvement).
The opinion summarized the legal effect of these sections with authorities: S.72 includes cost of repairs; S.76 limits a mortgagee-in-possession to making necessary repairs out of the balance of rents and profits and not to spend beyond that on his own account (but such outlays may be added to principal under S.72 if they preserve the property from destruction); S.63A circumscribes recoverable "improvements" to those falling within specified categories (preserving from destruction/deterioration, preventing insufficiency of security, or compliance with lawful order) and the general policy disallows improvements which would render redemption impracticable for the mortgagor.
The Court then turned to the concrete evidence: the mortgaged subject was a dilapidated house. The plan (Ex. B-6) shows walls were raised, repairs made, and cement concrete flooring laid. Documents in evidence included an account of expenses (Ex. B-35) and bills for material (Ex. B-36, B-37). The work was done under a Municipal licence (Ex. B-3). The Municipal Engineer (D.W.4) estimated the expenditure at Rs. 1,000 and indicated that the value was greatly enhanced.
The Court gave weight to the covenant in Ex. A-1 (quoted in the judgment), by which the parties had agreed on the allocation of repair responsibilities and payment of repair accounts at redemption. The Court noted that the presence of an express covenant can alter the statutory entitlements (i.e., parties can contract otherwise).
On the disputed characterization (repairs v. improvements), the Court surveyed lexicons, English and foreign authorities, Indian case-law, and Sir R. Ghose's treatise to elucidate that: (a) "repair" generally denotes restoration to sound condition and does not connote total reconstruction; (b) "improvement" denotes an addition or betterment that increases value; (c) there is overlap but distinct limits; (d) improvements must be reasonable in relation to the estate and must be proved with satisfactory evidence if claimed as a charge on redemption.
The Court concluded that, having regard to the covenant in Ex. A-1 and the admissible evidence of works and expenditure, the works carried out by the first defendant — whether characterized as repairs or improvements (the Court observed that "all repairs are improvements, though all improvements are not repairs") — should be taken into account and that the mortgagee is entitled to be paid the cost of such works along with the mortgage money before the mortgagor (or the plaintiff purchaser of the equity) redeems the property.
The Court declined to enter into other points raised in the memorandum of objections, relying on the concurrent findings of the courts below, and dismissed both the second appeal and the memorandum of objections.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Both the second appeal and the memorandum of objections are dismissed; the appeal is dismissed (final line: "Appeal dismissed"). The parties are ordered to bear their own costs; no leave is granted.

Direct Consequence for the Parties: The Court held that the mortgagee (first defendant) is entitled to be paid the cost of the works (the Rs. 1,000 estimated expenditure) along with the mortgage money before the property can be redeemed by the plaintiff (the purchaser of the equity of redemption).

Broader Implications: The opinion explains and applies established principles from Sections 72, 76 and 63A of the Transfer of Property Act and from prior case-law: it emphasizes (a) the distinction and overlap between "repairs" and "improvements", (b) the mortgagee's entitlement to necessary repair costs under statutory provisions and subject to contract, and (c) the need for proof and reasonableness when large sums for improvements are claimed. The opinion does not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond applying settled principles to the facts; it relies on and affirms existing authorities and the contractual covenant in Ex. A-1 to reach its result.

Note: This summary is strictly confined to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not introduce facts or inferences that are not expressly set out in that text.

Show all summary ...

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S No. 8 of 1954 modifying the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Satlur in O.S No. 209 of 1952.

2. The facts are: Mussafar Rowther and his son Muhammad Sultan executed a mortgage in favour of Hameed Rowther, father of defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 272 on 1-8-1930; vide Ex. A-1. The plaintiff has purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagors under Ex. A-4 dated 10-7-1952 for Rs. 300/- and filed the suit for redemption out of which this second appeal arises. Defendants 2 and 3 disclaimed any interest in the mortgaged property. It is unnecessary to go into the various points of controversy raised in the plaint and in the written statement because in this second appeal we are only concerned with the determination of the controversy whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property for the amount mentioned in Ex. A-1 or whether he should also pay the mortgagee costs of repairs which have been assessed at Rs. 1000/- by the learned District Munsif and upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge. The point in controversy can be easily decided if we bear in mind the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to (a) repairs and (b) improvements. For a thorough and lucid analysis of these sections (see AIR Commentaries, Transfer of Property Act, Third edition (1950) and Supplement brought upto 31-5-1954).

3. Section 72 lays down that a mortgagee may spend such money as is necessary for the preservation of the mortgaged property from destruction and may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary add such money to the principal money. This head will include the cost of repairs of the mortgaged property: Arunachella v. Sithayee Ammal, ILR 19 Mad 327: Ibrahim v. Arumugathayee, AIR 1916 Mad 859. Section 76 states that when during the continuance of the mortgage the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property, he must, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, make such necessary repairs of the property as he can pay for out of the rents and profits thereof after deducting from such rents and profits the payments-mentioned in clause (c) of that section and the interest on the principal money: see clause (d).

4. This clause imposes on the mortgagee in possession the liability to make such necessary repairs of the mortgaged property as can be done out of the balance remaining after deducting from the rents and profits the payment mentioned in clause (c) and the interest on the principal money. To the extent of the balance his liability to make the necessary repairs is paramount; Shiva Devi v. Jam Heggade, ILR 15 Mad 290. If loss is caused to the mortgagor by his failure to make such necessary repairs it may be debited against the mortgagee in the accounts to be taken in the settlement of the mortgage: (ibid).

5. He is, however, not bound to spend money any further than to keep the estate in necessary repairs. Nor is he bound, where the expenditure on the necessary repairs is likely to exceed the balance in his hands, to spend money out of his own pocket. If he does spend money out of his own pocket he cannot claim repayment from the mortgagor under this clause but will be allowed to add the expenditure to the principal money under S. 72, clause (b) if it is incurred for the preservation of the properly from destruction: Sheo Nandan v. Mohammed Khalik, AIR 1929 All 777. The provisions of this clause are not absolute but are subject to a contract to the contrary.

6. In regard to improvements S. 63A lays down that in order that a mortgagee may be entitled to the costs of an improvement made by him on the mortgaged property it must be shown that (1) it was necessary to preserve the property from destruction or deterioration, or (2) it was necessary to prevent the security from becoming insufficient, or (3) it was made in compliance with the lawful order of any public servant or public authority. The object of the restriction is to prevent the mortgagee from improving the property in such a way as to make it utterly impossible for the mortgagor with his means even to redeem it; in other words, from improving the mortgagor out of his estate; Per Lord Langdale in Sandon v. Hooper, (1843) 12 LJ Ch 309.

7. See for similar observations in Krishnamurthy Sheity v. Abdul Khadar, AIR 1956 Mys 14, wherein it has been said that the improvements must be-reasonable having regard to the nature and value of the estate for if it were not so, a weapon would be put into the mortgagee's hands with which lie might greatly clog the right of redemption. The right of the mortgagor to the improvement and the right of the mortgagee to the costs thereof are subject to any contract entered into by the parties, in respect thereof: Sultan Khan v. Hari, AIR 1956 Bhopal 13; Chedilal v. Babu Nandan, AIR 1944 All 204. Thus, if a mortgagor has agreed to become liable for the costs of any improvement that the mortgagee might make, he would be so liable even though the improvements are not of the nature-referred to in sub-s. (2) of S. 63A. The question whether there is a contract to the contrary and what is its nature depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where a mortgagee seeks to make the mortgagor liable for a large amount as cost of improvements it is his duty to establish by indubitable evidence the fact of the execution of such improvement: and the actual expenses incurred: Sundaram v. Valia Mannadiar, AIR 1947 Mad 197.

8. There can be no dispute in this case regarding the nature of the work done in regard to the hypotheca which has been mentioned as a house. The plan Ex. B-6 shows that the existing walls were raised and other repairs have been done and flooring had been done with cement concrete. In addition we have Ex. B-35, the account of the expenses incurred and Exs. B-36 and B-37 the bills for the purchase of building material. D.W 5, a mason, has been examined. These works have been done under the Municipal license: vide Ex. B-3. The value of the property which was a dilapidated and practically ruined building, has been greatly enhanced by this expenditure estimated at Rs. 1000/- by D.W 4, the Municipal Engineer and as the property-tax demand notices, receipts, registered rent deed, Exs. B-7 to B-34 show. The case for the mortgagee first defendant is that this expenditure had been incurred and the works carried out under the covenant in Ex. A-1 which is to the following effect:

“I shall myself carry out the repairs if any of schedule house after incurring expenditure. I shall myself pay the municipal tax. You yourself shall effect repairs at: your expense and I shall pay the sum as per repair accounts when I pay the usufructuary mortgage amount at the expiry of the period and shall redeem the property.”

9. Therefore, the next point for consideration is whether these works carried out by the mortgagee first defendant constitute repairs or improvements. In order to gather the meaning of the terms “repair” and “improvements” we must turn to (a) Standard Lexicons and (b) case-law on the subject; (c) and the classical treatise, Ghose, Law of Mortgages in India (T.L.L).

(a) LEXICONS.

Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language (2 Vols).

Repair: Act of repairing: restoration, or state of being restored, to a sound or good state after decay, waste, injury, etc.; supply of loss; reparation; mending. Also, an instance or result of such restoration — often in plural, as, the repairs to the house are extensive. Condition with respect to soundness need of repairing etc., as, a house in good, or bad, repair, or out of repair.

Improvement: A valuable addition, or betterment, as a building, clearing, drain, fence etc., on land.

Murray: New English Dictionary (10 Vols.).

Repair: The act of restoring to a sound or unimpaired condition; the process by which this is accomplished; the result attained.

Relative, state or condition of something admitting or susceptible of restoration in event of actual or possible damage or decay; chiefly of buildings or other composite structures and in phrase, in good (or bad) repair.

Improvement: The action or process of making or becoming better; Advance or increase in value or excellence; betterment; amelioration. Act of making or becoming better; a process, change or addition, by which the value or excellence of a thing is increased; that in which such addition consists or by which anything is made better.

Funk and Wagoalls: New Standard Dictionary of English Language (1953).

Repair: To mend, add to, or make over; as, to repair a building.

The process of repairing; restoration after decay, waste, injury, or partial destruction; supply of loss; reparation; as, the repair of a building; often in the plural; as, to make repairs on a roof;

Condition after use, especially, good condition; condition after repairing as, in what repair is the house?

Improvement: A valuable or useful addition to or modification of something; as, buildings, fences, etc., are improvements of real estate; repairs or additions are improvements of buildings;

Ballantine: Law Dictionary (1954) (O.S.A)

Repair: Under statutes authorizing special assessments for the reconstruction of street improvements, but not for the repair thereof, the work “repair” contemplates an existing structure or thing which has become imperfect by reason of the action of the elements, or otherwise. Work done on a structure which has not been demolished, but which has been damaged. The word is to be distinguished from reconstruction which properly applies only to work done upon a structure which had been demolished in whole or in part.

It would be in violation of a proper construction of the term “repair” to hold that it included an original improvement, or work of a different character from that previously done.

(48 Am Jur 604: Good Year Shoemachinery Co. v. Jackson, 60 C.C.A (V.S) 159; Vincent v. Froelich, (1898) 69 Am. St Rep. 436; Santacruz v. Brodrick, (1896) 113 Cal 628).

Improvement: A word that includes everything that enhances the value of premises permanently for general uses. The erection of a building, making substantial changes or additions in existing buildings, the laying of necessary side-walks and the digging of wells, are common illustrations. (27 Am. Jur. 260 : 36 Am. Jur. 42).

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, (Third edition) (1952).

Repair: To repair means to make good defects, including renewal where that is necessary, i.e, patching, where patching is reasonably practicable and, where it is not, you must put in a new piece.

……But “repair” does not connote a total reconstruction. (Inglis v. Buttery, (1878) 3 A.C 552; Creg v. Planque, (1936) 1 K.B 669; R. v. Epsom, (1863) 8 LT 383).

By an agreement to “keep in repair” a house out of repair means that the contracting party is first of all to put it in good repair having regard to its age and its class…….semble, you are to take into consideration the condition of the premises at the time of the contract. (Lister v. Lane and Nesham, (1893) 2 QB 212.

……It was held that though the covenant “well and substantially repair…. and keep in thorough repair and good condition” the demised premises, did not involve the liability to create an entirely new subject matter, or an entire renewal from top to bottom, yet that the covenantor was bound to renew and rebuild any subsidiary part (e.g the front all of the house demised) which was past ordinary repair (Lurcoit v. Wakely, (1911) 1 K.B 905; London Corporation v. Great Western and Metropolitan Rly. Co., (1910) 2 Ch. 314; Hewitt v. Rowlands, (1924) 93 L.J.K.B 1080).

10. To put premises in “habitual repair” means to improve the state of repair, and render the premises reasonably fit for an ordinary occupier of such premises. (Belcher v. M'Intosh, (1839) 8 C and P 720).

Improvement: A lease which expressly or impliedly empowers the making of “improvements” probably justifies the conversion of the premises from a useless storehouse into useful dwellinghouses, especially if the term be a long one and the external walls be not interfered with. (Doherty v. Allman, (1878) 3 A.C 709. 54 Corpus Juris (U.S.A): To sum up Repairing is in the language of “the restoring of a decayed injured dilapidated or partially destroyed building to a more or less sound substantial state………The word repairing has been distinguished from improvement………. Repairs often used in the plural is not a technical suppression and invokes the idea of something pre-existing, the condition of which has been affected in one of the modes suggested and presupposes something in existence to be repaired or the existence of the thing to be repaired……. The term has been held to embrace rebuilding and to include improvements. (pages 393-400 — Topic — “Repair”.

(b) CASE-LAW

In Nijalingappa v. Chanbasawa, ILR 43 Bom 69 : (AIR 1918 Bom 84) it was held that in a redemption suit, a mortgagee is entitled to recover from his mortgagor the reasonable and proper costs incurred in making lasting improvements viz., making the property more productive; and that in allowing costs of improvements the Court must naturally be on its guard against extravagant or unfounded claims and that it should inquire strictly into the bona fides and fairness of the claim in each particular case.

In Ramappa v. Yellappa, AIR 1928 Bom. 150, where the amount spent on improvements was five times the mortgage amount, the claim was not allowed, following Dnyanu Laxman v. Fakira Ebram, AIR 1921 Bom 250. But the grounds on which this conclusion was arrived at are not indicated in the judgment. So this decision is not very helpful.

In Ram Asray…Plaintiff v. Hira Lal…., AIR 1949 All 681, it was held that where the mortgagee in possession of the mortgaged property which is a kuchcha building, demolishes the building and constructs a new pacca building without the consent of the mortgagor, the new construction is an improvement and cannot be described as an accession and that in the absence of any contract to the contrary, the mortgagor upon redemption is entitled to the improvement and shall not, save in cases provided for in Section 63-A(2) of the Transfer of Property Act be liable to pay the cost thereof. See also Kukaji v. Misrilal, AIR 1952 Madh-Bha 6 and Mahommed Baba v. Mukhti, AIR 1953 J and K 14 : AIR 1956 Mys 14, Hamappa v. Raman Gouda, AIR 1956 Bom. 575.

(c) The following passage from Sir Rashbehary Ghose's Law of Mortgage in India (Tagore Law Lectures) Fifth Edition, page 577 is apposite:

“………There is an idea, erroneous, I take leave to think, that under the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee is not entitled to any allowance under the head of repairs except such as are absolutely necessary. It is thought that the mortgagee should merely preserve the estate in as good a condition as that in which he received it; and if he does more, he does so at his own risk. But surely the words of the Act ‘the due management of the property’ are wide enough to include all expenses which a prudent owner would incur for the profitable enjoyment of the land; as, for instance, money spent in repairing a well which has been rendered useless from natural causes, or in constructing a substantial embankment in the place of an inferior structure for the better protection of the estate.

Of course, if a mortgagee chooses to speculate and spend money in the hope that he would be able to improve the property, he must do so at his own risk. But it would seriously hamper the mortgagee and in the end might also be hurtful to the interests of the mortgagor himself, if the whole duty of the former was to restore the property merely in the condition in which it was when he assumed possession. ‘I have no difficulty in saying’, observed the Master of the Rolls in Hardy v. Reeves, (1799), 4 Ves. 466, ‘that a mortgagee of a copyhold may pull down ruinous houses and build much better ones’; a remark the application of which, I may mention in passing, is not confined to cottages on a copyhold.”

11. Bearing these principles in mind, if we examine the facts of this case, we find that by reason of the Covenant specifically entered into under the mortgage Ex. A-1, the works done by the mortgagee, the first defendant, at a cost estimated at Rs. 1000/-, whether looked upon as repairs or as improvements — all repairs are improvements, though all improvements are not repairs as the extracts given above show — should be taken into account and the mortgagee is entitled to be paid the cost of such works along with the mortgage money before being redeemed.

12. I am not further discussing the points raised in the memorandum of objections, in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

13. The contention of the cross-objector is devoid of merits.

14. In the result, both the second appeal and the memorandum of objections are dismissed and in the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.

15. No leave.

EB/V.B.B

16. Appeal dismissed.