A registered mortgage remains subsisting until its redemption is proved.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 6 May 2026 in Revision Petition No. 44/2025, which transferred mutation entries in favour of the private respondents.

The petitioners relied on a registered mortgage deed dated 13 March 1952, asserting that it had not been redeemed.

The private respondents contended that the mortgage had been redeemed and relied on a later mortgage and sale deed; however, they had not produced a deed of redemption.

The private respondents had also filed O.S. No. 1251/2025, which was pending before the Civil Court.

The Court applied the principle under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that a registered mortgage continues until it is redeemed.

It also proceeded on the basis that the private respondents’ substantive rights in the property were to be established before the Civil Court in the pending suit.

The Court noted that although the private respondents asserted that the 1952 mortgage had been redeemed, they had produced no deed of redemption, and the revenue authorities’ findings did not establish when redemption had occurred.

Applying the rule that a mortgage subsists until redemption, the Court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had erred in disturbing the petitioners’ position in the revenue records.

Because the private respondents’ rights remained to be determined in the pending civil suit, the Court considered that the Deputy Commissioner’s order should be set aside.

It directed the Tahasildar to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for the subject land within two months of receiving the certified copy, subject to any modification made after the challenged order.