Can a usufructuary mortgagee insist on payment for improvements before parting with possession?

Not without an express covenant. Under s.62 of the Transfer of Property Act, a usufructuary mortgagee is entitled to remain in possession of the mortgaged property and to appropriate the rents, profits and usufruct in lieu of interest or towards the mortgage money, as agreed between the parties. In the absence of an express covenant in the mortgage deed, he is not entitled to claim reimbursement of developmental charges or the value of improvements as a condition precedent for redemption.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.62 — Usufructuary mortgage — Redemption — Clog on the equity of redemption — Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.33 — Sreedhana — Partition — Moulding of relief — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Redemption before the stipulated period — Clog on the equity of redemption — Held: A mortgage is redeemable even before the stipulated period expires unless a statutory restriction or an express enforceable covenant bars it; a term that prevents or unreasonably restricts redemption is a clog on the equity of redemption and unenforceable. (¶18) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.62 — Usufructuary mortgage — No reimbursement for improvements — Held further: A usufructuary mortgagee holds possession and appropriates the rents and profits in lieu of interest; without an express covenant he cannot demand the value of improvements as a condition precedent to redemption. (¶22) Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.33 — Sreedhana is not a partition of the daughter's inheritance — Held further: A gift of Sreedhana at marriage is neither partition nor relinquishment and cannot curtail a daughter's statutory right to succeed; among Christians the widow takes one-third and the lineal descendants two-thirds equally. (¶26, ¶29) Partition — Candour as to assets and liabilities — Relief to be moulded — Held further: A plaintiff seeking partition must disclose the estate's liabilities as well as its assets, and a court finding an entitlement smaller than claimed should mould the relief rather than dismiss the suit. Appeal partly allowed. (¶28, ¶33)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Joice v. Paulraj — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India