TIKAM SINGH Vs. HARGOBIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge in this case is correct. The question before him was whether Har Gobind, who was impleaded as a defendant in a suit for sale on a mortgage, was entitled to put forward the defence that he had purchased the land free of all incumbrances including that of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiff's mortgage bears date the 7 February 1910. Before that the owner of this land, Mt. Lado, had taken a takavi loan from Government on the 10 March 1901 under the provisions of the Land Improvement Loans Act (XIX of 1883).

(3.) Having failed to repay the loan to the Government, the property was sold by the Government and was purchased by Har Gobind. Section 7 of the Land Improvements Loans Act provides for the recovery of takavi loans. The question which was before the learned Judge, and which has been raised again before us, is whether, when the Government took steps to realize the loan they were acting under Clause (c) or Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Clearly, if action was taken under Clause (c), the contention of Har Gobind was correct because in that case, having regard to the language of Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, which has to be read along with Section 7 of the Land Improvement Loans Act, the sale must necessarily be free of all incumbrances.