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

1. The appellants in these appeals are the representatives of the mortgagees of the suit properties. The respondents in both these appeals claim to represent the interest of the mortgagors. Civil Appeal No. 1250 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 280 of 1961 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak and Civil Appeal No. 1251 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 334 of 1961 on the file of the same judge. Both the suits were suits for redemption. The trial court dismissed both the suits on two grounds viz. (1) that Kura, the person from whom the plaintiffs claim to have purchased the rights of the mortgagors was incapable of entering into a contract as he was insane. Hence the sale deeds executed by him are void and (2) the claim for redemption in respect of the various mortgages sought to be redeemed excepting the one executed on April 26, 1912 is barred by limitation. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and decreed both the suits excepting as regards the mortgage dated January 20, 1878. In second appeal Capoor J. of the Punjab High Court confirmed the decision of the learned District Judge. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants were summarily dismissed. Thereafter these appeals were brought after obtaining special leave from this Court.2. Both the learned District Judge as well as the learned Judge of the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that Kura was insame at the time he sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs. This is a finding of fact and we see no reason to go behind it.

Court's reasoning:
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.