RAM PALHAWAN Vs. UMMEDI AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are defendants to a case started under Section 12. U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the redemption of a mortgage dated 13-2-1878. The application for redemption under Section 12 was filed some time in the year 1944. The claim for redemption was contested, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This plea was overruled by the Court of first instance and a decree for redemption was passed without any payment on the finding that the mortgage had been paid from the usufruct. The lower appellate Court has agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision the defendants have come up in revision to this Court and the plea of limitation has been again urged in this Court.

(2.) It is obvious from the dates given above that the application for redemption was made more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage and the claim was, therefore, prima facie, barred by limitation.

(3.) The Courts below have, however, relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported as Ram Prasad v. Bishambhar Singh, 1946 ALL. L. J. 175. Another subsequent ruling was cited before the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court as an authority for the proposition that Ram Prasad's case was not applicable to proceedings for redemption under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned civil Judge, without applying his mind to what was decided in the subsequent case and without properly appreciating the import of the decisions in the two Oases cited before him, thought that the two decisions were opposed to each other and refused to follow the subsequent decision on the ground that the subsequent ruling, being the decision of a single Judge, could not be followed in view of the earlier Bench decision.