MUKAND LAL Vs. BALLU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepore.

(2.) THE facts of this case are not in dispute. Briefly, the defendants alongwith other co-owners mortgaged land measuring 69 Kanals 14 Marias for a sum of Rs. 1000/ -. Earlier mortgage is dated 26-1 1 -1 954 for a sum of Rs. l000/ -. This is recorded in the Jamabandi. Assistant Collector redeemed the land on 21-21985. The defendants had one-half share in the land. The other co-owners did not join hand with the defendants for moving application for redemption. Consequently, the defendants appellants filed an application under Section 3 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913 (Act No. 2 of 1913) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Assistant Collector for redemption of land on payment of Ks 502/-being his half share of the mortgaged amount. Notice of the said application was issued to tae plaintiffs-respondents by the Assistant Collector. The plaintiffs filed reply to the application wherein they raised an objection that the applicant could not seek redemption on payment of one half share of the mortgaged amount, in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. when the case came up for hearing before the Assistant Collector, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs did not urge this objection The Assistant Collector vide order dated 21-2-1985 ordered redemption of one half share of land of the defendant on payment of Rs. 502/ -. Aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Collector, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration as provided in section U of the Redemption of Mortgage Act. The sole ground taken in the suit by the plaintiffs was that the defendant was not entitled to dm redemption on payment of one-half share of the mortgaged amount in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act This argument found favour with the trial Court and the suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6-11-1987.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 6 -12-1988. This is how, the matter has come up before this Court id Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants-appellants.