Did the Court require a formal conveyance?

No. Given the legal context then, the compromise itself, acted upon for decades, was sufficient to extinguish the right.

Who finally decided the case?

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the appeal and upheld the extinguishment of the equity of redemption.

Why is this case important for students?

It shows how long-accepted compromises can close redemption rights, a key point for mortgage law answers.

Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli

Case Snapshot

CASE_TITLE: Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli (1914) 42 Cal 801; 28 IC 930
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: equity of redemption, mortgage redemption, compromise (rajinama)
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Privy Council, Calcutta citation, extinguishment of equity, Bengal High Court
PUBLISH_DATE: 01-11-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

Judgment gavel representing Privy Council decision

```

Quick Summary

This case explains when a mortgagor’s right to redeem ends. The parties settled their mortgage fight by a rajinama (compromise) and followed it for decades. The Privy Council said: because everyone acted on the compromise, the equity of redemption was finished. No separate deed was needed for that period of law.

Issues

Does the right to redeem survive after a compromise accepted by all parties over time?
Can a compromise, though not made by a formal conveyance, still end the equity of redemption?

Rules

Equity of redemption is the basic right of a mortgagor.
Parties can extinguish this right by a clear agreement that settles the dispute.
If such an agreement is acted upon for long and accepted by all, courts treat the right as ended.
In the legal setting of the time, a separate written conveyance was not necessary to validate the compromise.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for mortgages and compromise

1848 & 1871: Two mortgages are created over the property.

1850: Original mortgagor Faslul Karim transfers the property to his wife, Khodajanessa.

1851: She files to redeem; the matter lingers without final resolution.

1870–1871: Agreement with mortgagees (Ram Chund Mukerji’s sons) and then another mortgage in 1871.

1873: Dispute leads to a suit; parties execute a rajinama (compromise). Property is divided; mortgage debts are treated as settled.

1873–1890s: Everyone follows the compromise peacefully for decades.

1890: After Khodajanessa’s death, her successors try to redeem again.

High Court (Bengal): Reverses the Second Subordinate Judge.

Privy Council: Final appeal is heard.

Arguments

Appellants (Heirs of Khodajanessa)

The equity of redemption still exists; compromise did not legally end it.
No formal conveyance means title never passed; redemption remains open.

Respondents (Mortgagees’ Side)

The rajinama settled everything: property division + discharge of debt.
All parties acted on it for decades; equity of redemption is gone.

Judgment

Held: Appeal dismissed with costs. The right to redeem was extinguished.

The compromise was a full settlement: it divided the property and wiped out the mortgage debt.
Because everyone followed it for over thirty years, the law treats the compromise as final.
At that time, a separate formal conveyance was not required to give effect to this settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties clearly compromise a mortgage dispute and consistently act upon it for a long period, the equity of redemption stands extinguished—even without a separate conveyance in the legal context then applicable.

Why It Matters

Shows courts respect long-acted compromises in mortgage disputes.
Clarifies that conduct over time can close the door on redemption.
Helps in exam answers on equity of redemption and clog arguments.

Key Takeaways

Compromise + Conduct → can end equity of redemption.
Long Acceptance → courts treat settlement as final.
No Separate Deed (then) → not fatal to the settlement.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RAJINAMA CLOSES REDEMPTION”

Real settlement made.
Acted on for ages.
Judgment confirms extinction.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Whether the compromise ended the right to redeem despite no formal conveyance.
Rule	Equity of redemption can be extinguished by a compromise that is acted upon and accepted for long.
Application	Decades of peaceful enjoyment under the rajinama showed clear acceptance; mortgage debts were treated as settled.
Conclusion	Equity of redemption ended; appeal dismissed with costs.

Glossary

Equity of Redemption: The borrower’s right to reclaim property by paying off the mortgage.
Razinama (Compromise): A written settlement between parties to end a dispute.
Extinguishment: Ending a legal right so it cannot be used anymore.