SARDARA AND OTHERS Vs. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff who had instituted a suit for obtaining a declaration to this effect that the land in dispute measuring 35 Kanals 2 Marlas stood redeemed and that an injunction should be issued against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the land. The land had been mortgaged as far as back as February 1, 1989, by Gobinda to Faquiria for a consideration of Rs. 300/- and the possession of the land had been delivered to the mortgagee. The successors-in-interest of Gobinda filed an application for the redemption of the land under the provisions of Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act. The application was filed on September 8, 1959, and the land was ordered to be redeemed on October 25, 1959. Faquiria had a son named Atma Singh who died after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, leaving behind three sons, namely, Karam Singh, Gurdit Singh and Kartar Singh. All these three sons were the parties to the applications for redemption. It so happened that Charno who was a daughter of Atma Singh and entitled to share in the mortgage-money was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings relating to redemption. The Sub Judge First Class, Dasuya, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on August 30, 1968 found the decision of the Collector to be defective on the ground that not only Charno but two other daughters of Atma Singh had not been impleaded as parties. The Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, partly allowed the plea of the plaintiff by holding that the redemption in relation to three-fourths share of the land belonging to Karam Singh, Gurdit Singh, and Kartar Singh was valid. The plaintiffs in this second appeal have claimed that their suit in relation to whole of the land should have been decreed.

(2.) It is undisputed that whole of the mortgage-money has been paid on behalf of the plaintiffs to three sons of Atma Singh who were respondents to the redemption application. The interpretation of Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act is involved. According to this provision, any party aggrieved by an order made for the redemption under the 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. The learned Additional District Judge while discussing this matter in para 9 of the judgment has added that the order would be final as against those who were parties to the proceedings. Charno had definitely a right to institute a suit if she felt aggrieved against the order of the Collector. That order, according to my mind, would not only bind the parties to the proceedings but all those persons who could feel aggrieved. Thus, the order of the Collector in the absence of any suit by Charno has to be held as conclusive against her. She cannot after the expiry of the limitation provided by law challenge the redemption on the ground that her share of the mortgage-money has not been paid. Anyway, she had a clear right to recover her share of the mortgage-money after the same had been received by the other co-mortgagors. She has at all not filed a suit against them.

(3.) Thus my finding is that a decree in favour of the plaintiffs should have been granted not only in relation to three-fourths of the land but in relation to whole of the land. This appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in relation to whole of the land in dispute. As the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has not raised any serious objection to the finding arrived at by this Court, the respondents are not burdened with costs. The parties shall bear their own costs.