Case: Shiv Lal &amp; Ors Vs. Chet Ram &amp; Ors

that date. It appears that the plaintiffs have deliberately given a wrong date of the mortgage in the plaint with a view to bring the suit within the period of limitation. The learned District Judge has opined that the claim for redemption of this item of property is also within time in view of Ex. P-8. Here again no evidence was led to show that the original statement was signed either by the mortgagors or by their representatives. The original was not produced in Court. Ex. P-8 is only a certified copy. By merely producing a copy, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the signature in the original statement is that of the mortgagors or their representatives. As discussed earlier the plaintiffs cannot take the benefit of Section 90 of the Evidence Act or Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act or Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act to prove that the original was signed by the mortgagors or their representatives. Hence the plaintiffs claim in respect of plaint item No. 3 must also fail.9. In the result Civil Appeal No. 1250 of 1966 is partly allowed and the plaintiffs claim for redemption of plaint items Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is dismissed and the decree for redemption of plaint item No. 1 is upheld.10. Now we shall take up Civil Appeal No. 1251 of 1966 arising from Suit No. 334 of 1961. Therein redemption of two mortgages said to have been executed on June 19, 1894 and May 15, 1896 was sought. Prima facie the suit is barred by limitation. But it was contended and that contention was accented by the appellate Court and the High Court that the suit is within time in view of (1) the acknowledgments made by the mortgagors or their representatives on several occasions, the last of which was on June 25, 1919 and (2) in view of the application made by the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 (Act No. II of 1913). We shall first take up the question of acknowledgments. The acknowledgments in question were sought to be proved by production of certain certified copies. The originals of those copies were not produced. No evidence was led to show that the originals were signed either by the mortgagors or by their representatives. For the reasons earlier mentioned those copies cannot serve as acknowledgments.11. Now coming to the application made under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, the same was made on May 16, 1959 and it was dismissed on April 18, 1061. Therein the parties were referred to a civil suit. Ever if the period taken in prosecuting the said application is excluded in computing the period of limitation, the suit for redemptionis admittedly barred. But what was urged on behalf of the plaintiffs is that in view of Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, the plaintiffs were entitled to bring the suit within one year from April 18, 1961, the date on which their application was dismissed. There is no dispute that for the suit contemplated by the aforesaid Section 12, the period of limitation prescribed is one year from the date of the order. The dismissal of the petition in this case was made under Section 10 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913. Therefore the order made on that application comes within the scope of Section 12. But the real question is whether S. 12 enlarges the period of limitation for a redemption suit. That section to the extent material for our present purpose reads as follows:"Any party aggrieved by an order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this Act may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive."12. This section merely provides that a summary order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 becomes final unless a suit to establish the rights of the mortgagors is instituted within the prescribed period. From this provision we are unable to hold that in view of that section, the period of limitation fixed for redemption of mortgages can be enlarged. Several decisions of the Lahore High Court holding that if a suit as required by Section 12 is not filed within the time prescribed then the right of redemption will be lost even if the time prescribed under the Limitation Act for instituting a suit for redemption has not expired. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of these decisions though prima facie we are inclined to accept their correctness because they merely lay down that if any party aggrieved by an order under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 does not institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage within the time prescribed, his right to sue for redemption is lost. Those decisions do not support the contention of the plaintiffs that a mortgagor whose application for redemption under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act is dismissed can file a suit for redemption of the mortgage even though the limitation prescribed for such a suit had expired, if only he files that suit within a period of one year from the date of the order dismissing his petition under Section 4. No decision taking that view was brought to our notice. What is made conclusive by Section 12 is the order made by the Collector if the suit as conclusive by Section 12 is not instituted within the prescribed time. That provision does not lend any support for the contention that if an application which fulfils the requirements of S. 4 is brought then the period of limitation prescribed for a redemption suit becomes irrelevant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12. This section merely provides that a summary order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 ofthe Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 becomes final unless a suit to establish the rights of the mortgagors is instituted within the prescribed period. From this provision we are unable to hold that in view of that section, the period of limitation fixed for redemption of mortgages can be enlarged. Several decisions of the Lahore High Court holding that if a suit as required by Section 12 is not filed within the time prescribed then the right of redemption will be lost even if the time prescribed under the Limitation Act for instituting a suit for redemption has not expired. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of these decisions though prima facie we are inclined to accept their correctness because they merely lay down that if any party aggrieved by an order under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 ofthe Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 does not institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage within the time prescribed, his right to sue for redemption is lost. Those decisions do not support the contention of the plaintiffs that a mortgagor whose application for redemption under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act is dismissed can file a suit for redemption of the mortgage even though the limitation prescribed for such a suit had expired, if only he files that suit within a period of one year from the date of the order dismissing his petition under Section 4. No decision taking that view was brought to our notice. What is made conclusive by Section 12 is the order made by the Collector if the suit as conclusive by Section 12 is not instituted within the prescribed time. That provision does not lend any support for the contention that if an application which fulfils the requirements of S. 4 is brought then the period of limitation prescribed for a redemption suit becomes irrelevant.