BABU RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the orders passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur dated 07.06.1991 (Annexure P2) which has been further upheld by the Commissioner on 29.09.1994 (Annexure P3) and by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 06.04.1995 (Annexure P4). By the said order, the appeal filed by Muni Lal, respondent No. 2 had been allowed by the Collector and it was held that the payment of mortgaged money to one of co -mortgager, without the consent of the other co -mortgagee would not be binding upon the other mortgagees. As notice above, the petitioners were unsuccessful before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that land measuring 40 kanals, falling in Village Dhut, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur had been mortgaged in the year 1934. On 06.09.1988, the mortgaged amount was paid to Shakuntala Devi, respondent No. 9, wife of Des Raj, by the petitioners and possession of the land was delivered to them and mutation No. 929 was sanctioned on the said date by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. The Tehsildar, vide order dated 08.03.1990, applied for review of this mutation on the ground that only the statement of respondent No. 9, Shakuntala Devi had been recorded and the redemption should not have been allowed. The said review application was allowed by the Collector, Gurdaspur and the mutation being contested, was referred to the Court of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide order dated 17.07.1990. The earlier order dated 06.09.1988 was upheld on 12.10.1990 (Annexure P1) by holding that payment had been made to Shakuntala Devi and if her other family members had any grudge against Shakuntala Devi, they could take resort to the Civil Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 -Muni Lal filed appeal before the Collector, Gurdaspur, challenging the said order on the ground that one of the mortgagees could not accept the money and the mortgage having been made in 1934, the same had become time -barred. The Collector, Gurdaspur came to the conclusion that the original mortgage deed had not been placed on record of the file and therefore, it could not be established that the mortgage was created in 1934 and that the same had become time barred. The photocopy which was placed on record showed it to be in Urdu language and the alleged receipt had not been proved. However, the Collector accepted the argument that the single mortgagee could not give receipt on behalf of others without their consent for getting complete discharge of the mortgage deed and it would not be binding upon the other mortgagees. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order dated 12.10.1990 was set aside.

(3.) IN view of the above, the orders passed by the learned Collector and learned Commissioner in this case were just and legally sound and hence this revision petition merits no consideration.