RADHA RAMAN TIWARY Vs. RAMA KANTPATI TIWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed an application under Section 12 of the Bihar money Lenders Act, 1974 for possession over the property which was mortgaged by his predecessor-in-interest on 17-4- 1924 for a period of nine years. The application was allowed by the revenue authorities, but the high Court in revision set aside the judgments on the ground that on the date on which the bihar Money Lenders Act came into force, there was no subsisting mortgage. The High Court relied upon its own Full Bench decision in Raghunandan Raj v. The Collector and Ors. [1986 pljr 1026]. It is this judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal in which we have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) As stated above, the property was mortgaged on 17-4-1924. The period of limitation as prescribed under the old Limitation Act of 1908 was sixty years under Article 148. On the enforcement of the new Limitation Act in 1963, the period was reduced to thirty years under Article 61. Section 30 (a) of the new Limitation Act provided that if for any suit for which the period of limitation is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the old Act, then the suit could be instituted within a period of seven years next after the commencement of the new Act. In this view of the statutory provision, the suit for redemption of property mortgaged in 1924 could have been filed only upto 1970.

(3.) That being so, in 1974, when the bihar Money Lenders Act came into force, there was no subsisting mortgage which could have been treated as redeemed under Section 12 of the Act nor could any application be filed for recovery of possession.