Skip to main content

subrogation u/TPA

 Subrogation under TPA: Kinds & Essentials

By Shreya Verma

The equitable principle of subrogation is as old as a Roman law and was earlier applicable in Indian and English courts as an equitable principle. Subrogation means ‘substitution’- i.e., when a person having any interest in the mortgaged property redeems the mortgage which means, he pays off the mortgaged money to the mortgagee, he substitutes mortgagee and acquires all his rights. Meaning thereby, if a person other than the mortgagor himself, redeems the mortgage, then in such case, he enters into the shoes of mortgagee and substitute the mortgagee for the purpose of redemption, foreclosure and sale.

In Bisseswar Prasad vs. Lala Sarnam Singh (1910) Cal., It was held that, subrogation is not dependent upon the doctrine of privity of contract. Which means a third person (Other than the parties to mortgage- The mortgagor and the mortgagee) can enforce foreclosure, sale or redemption of the mortgage if he redeems the mortgage on the behalf of the mortgagor.

Essentials of subrogation:

  1. There has been a mortgage;

  2. In that mortgage-

 -> a person interested in the mortgage property other than the mortgagor; or

 ->Any other person has advanced money to the mortgagor for redemption of the mortgage;

  1. Such person is then said to be subrogated (substituted) to the right of the mortgagee – whose mortgage is redeemed; and

  2. by virtue of such subrogation or substitution, that person acquires a right of redemption, foreclosure or sale of such property in the same manner as the of the mortgagee would have. 

Illustration: ‘A’ and ‘B’ Are joint owners of the property X, having equal shares each. The mortgaged X to ‘C’ And advanced a loan of Rs.10,000. ‘B’ then paid the entire sum of Rs.10,000 to ‘C’. Here, ‘B’ by this act of his substitutes ‘C’ and gets all the rights which ‘C’ would otherwise have against ‘A’ as a mortgagee. 

It is necessary for this provision to be applicable that, the person redeeming must have some interest in the property, or else, he may enter into a contract with the mortgagor that he would pay off the mortgagee only if he gets the right of subrogation.

 Kinds of subrogation:

  1.  Legal Subrogation: When a person interested in the mortgage property is entitled to be subrogated in the place of the mortgagee.

Following are the persons who are interested in the mortgaged property or equity of redemption-

(a) Puisne or subsequent mortgagee:

Illustration: ‘A’ mortgaged X to ‘B’ for Rs. 5000

‘A’ mortgaged X to ‘C’ for Rs. 3000

‘A’ mortgaged X to ‘D’ for Rs. 2000

‘D’ paid Rs. 5000 to ‘B’. Here, ‘D’ By virtue of this act-gets priority over ‘C’.

Also, he will be treated as the first mortgagee, i.e., when ‘C’ wants to get mortgage from ‘D’ will get a priority him.

(b) Co-mortgagor: He’s a person who is also the co-owner of the mortgaged property. Thus, is the one interested in mortgaged property. Therefore, by paying off the whole of the loan advanced to the mortgagee, he gets clothed as mortgagee against the other co-mortgagor.

  1. (c) Surety: If a surety, who has been appointed to satisfy the loan advanced, in case of failure of mortgagor to repay -> The surety gets all the rights, be it the right of redemption, foreclosure or sale whichever the mortgagee would get against the mortgagor.

(d) Purchaser of equity of redemption: In Gokuldas vs Puranman (1884) Cal., Gokul das, the creditor of the mortgagor, purchased equity of redemption and paid off the prior mortgagee as well. The Privy Council held, that Gokuldas, being the purchaser of equity of redemption has been subrogated to the rights of mortgagee.

By Such act – the purchaser does not become owner of the mortgaged property, but he has all rights which the mortgagee would have against the mortgagor who sold equity of redemption.

  1.  Conventional Subrogation- When a person by an agreement in writing and registered, advances money to the mortgagor on the condition that he would be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee and thereby redeems the mortgage by that money. Then, that person Subrogates mortgagor- It is necessity that the prior mortgage must be discharged as a whole.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree