HARNAM KAUR Vs. TARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the second appeal:

(2.) WHETHER the power of attorney alleged to have been granted by the plaintiff in favour of her husband, was duly established to maintain the suit as framed?

(3.) AS regards the contention that suit was without any prayer for actual redemption but made with a mere prayer for setting aside the order passed by the authority under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act and hence cannot be maintained, point is not res integra. The issue has been clearly answered in Tek Chand and others v. Ram Sarup and others, 1970 PLJ 274, wherein the Court has, while making reference to earlier rulings of the High Court held that a suit for declaration filed under Section 12 of Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913 must be construed also as a suit for redemption. The suit cannot be therefore dismissed for the sole reason that a specific prayer for redemption was not sought.