PRITAM KAUR Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff second appeal whose suit for possession of agricultural land by way of redemption was decreed by the trial Court but has been dismissed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas on payment of Rs. 212.50 as mortgage money. This land was originally owned by Sobha Singh who mortgaged it with Deva Singh for a sum of Rs. 300 vide mutation order sanctioned on Aug. 29, 1980. After the death of Sobha Singh his son Tarlok Singh inherited the property and he further mortgaged it with Naginder Singh etc. For a sum of Rupees 400 and mutation regarding the same was sanctioned on Aug. 14. 1938. Tarlok Singh against mortgaged this land with Jhangi Singh and Nand Singh for a sum of Rs. 500 and mutation was sanctioned on Aug. 18, 1938. Tarlok Singh also died and the plaintiff and the defendants are his successors-in-interest. Pritam Kaur plaintiff alleged that she had 1/8th share in the property left by Sobha Singh as after the death of Tarlok Singh. Santi inherited 1/8th share and she was the successor-in-interest of Santi. Defendant Sher Singh got redeemed all the three mortgagees in 1944 and after redemption the share of the plaintiff devolved upon him as a mortgagee. The total amount of all the three mortgages was Rs. 1700 and as the share of the plaintiff in the property was 1/8th she was entitled to get possession of her share in the property on payment of Rupees 212.15. She filed an application before the Collector under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913(for short 'the Act') for getting the land redeemed but that application was rejected on May 27, 1971. Under the circumstances, she field the present suit on June 10, 1971 for possession by way of redemption on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the grounds that it was barred by time and that the plaintiff had got no right to redeem the suit land. The trial Court found that the suit was clearly within time as the plaintiff was entitled to the period spent in the disposal of the application filed by the before the Collector under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act. It was further found that the plaintiff Pritam Kaur being an heir of the mortgagor was entitled to file the present suit for redemption. As a result of these findings the plaintiff's suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 212.15. In appeal filed on behalf of the defendant the only controversy was whether the suit was within time or not. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the period spent by her in prosecuting her application before the Collector because the proceedings could not be said to be the proceedings under the Civil P. C. by a Court exercising general civil jurisdiction to which S. 14 of the Limitation Act applies. As a result of this finding the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal in this Court.