CHANAN SINGH Vs. MAJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubts about the correctness of the ratio decidendi in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurditta Singh v. Harbans Singh, (1974) 76 Pun LR 418, have rightly necessitated this reference to the Full Bench,

(2.) The legal issues, which fall for determination herein, arise from pleadings and facts which are not in serious dispute. The original owner of the land in the suit was one Gopal Singh, who mortgaged the same to Mst. Mejo, respondent, for Rs. 260. The deed of mortgage wee executed at Kasur (now in Pakistan) on June 25, 1942, the period of mortgage being 20 years. Subsequently, Gopal Singh executed another mortgage deed in favour of Chanan Singh, plaintiff- appellant, on the 13th of October, 1959, whereby he vested him with the right to get the land in dispute redeemed from the first mortgagee, Shrimati Mejo, Apparently during the subsisting period of the original mortgage, i.e. on the 13th of June, 1962, Chanan Singh plaintiff-appellant filed an application for redemption of the land in dispute in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Patti, under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913. This application was resisted on behalf of Smt Mejo, on the specific ground that the period of the mortgage was yet subsisting on the date when the application for redemption was made and consequently the plaintiff led no evidence in support of his case and the application was ultimately dismissed on the 19th of November, 1962.

(3.) Chanan Singh plaintiff-appellant then brought the suit, from which these proceedings arise, on 27th of January, 1965, He claimed redemption on the facts aforementioned and particularly averred in paragraph 5 of his plaint that since the period of the original mortgage in favour of Shrimati Mejo had now expired by the efflux of time he was entitled to claim the redemption of the suit land. In resising the suit, Shrimati Mejo defendant-respondent raised a preliminary objection that since the application of the plaintiff for redemption of the land in dispute was dismissed by the Collector on the 19th of November, 1962, and no suit had been brought by him for getting that order set aside within the prescribed limit of one year, the order of the Collector had become conclusive under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and was, therefore, beyond challenge.