LACHHMI Vs. ATRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected plaintiff's second appeals (Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1175 and 1176 of 1965) in which the same point is involved, namely, whether the suits filed by the plaintiff were barred by limitation or not.

(2.) There is no dispute about facts. The plaintiff was the successor-in-interest of the original mortgagors of the lands in question, while the defendants were the successors-in-interest of the mortgagees. The plaintiff's mother filed applications under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913, hereinafter called the Act, for redemption of the land before the Collector at Kaithal, which were rejected in one case on 31st July, 1961, and in the other on 1st August, 1961. During the pendency of the applications, the plaintiff's mother died and the plaintiff was, therefore, substituted in her place. Later on, she brought suits in the Civil Court, which have given rise to these appeals, on 11th April, 1963, for possession of the land in dispute by redemption. The question arose whether the said suits were barred by limitation or not. It is common ground that the suits had been filed beyond one year of the date of the passing of the orders by the Collector under the Act.

(3.) Both the Courts have held that the said suits were barred by time. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the finding on the question of limitation by the Courts below was incorrect in law, inasmuch as the plaintiff need not have filed the suits within one year under Section 12 of the Act read with Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 , because the orders of the Collector were not on merits.