PRITHI NATH SINGH Vs. SURAF AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We allowed Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960 on May 4, 1962 by our Judgment dealing with the facts of the case and giving the reasons for the opinion expressed. It is not necessary to repeat them.

(2.) Suffice it to say that the appeal was allowed on the ground that the respondents had lost their right to recover possession from the appellants on their estate vesting in the State of Bihar by virtue of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, and their having no subsisting right to recover possession from the appellants. It was also held that they could not get advantage of the provisions of cl. (c) of sub s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act, as amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act XVI of 1959) as no mortgage subsisted on the date of vesting. The amended cl. (c) reads as follows:

(3.) It is contended for the respondents, who applied for the review of our Judgment, that our view that the mortgage was not subsisting on the date of vesting was wrong The contention is that even though the respondents mortgagors had paid up the mortgage money in 1943, the mortgage continued to subsist till the date of vesting as by that time the right of redemption given by S. 60 of the Transfer of Property Act had not come to amend. That right, according to the respondents' contention, would not come to an end so long as the mortgagors right to ask the mortgagees to perform any of the acts mentioned in S. 60 continues. In support of the contention that the mortgage continues till the right of redemption comes to an end, reliance is placed on the case reported as Subba Rao vs. Mattanalli Raju 1919 FCR 484. We do not agree with these contentions.