KANSHI RAM AND ANR. versus LACHHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 09-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·KANSHI RAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
LACHHMAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 2001 
(D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRJJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (Act 31 of 1976) 
Ss. 4,5 and. 6-Suit for redemption of mortgage-Initiation of-
Uinitation -Applicability of-Property mortgaged in the year 1946-Suit C 
for restoration of possession filed in the year 1981-Trial Court and First 
Appellate Court holding that the suit was filed within time-On appeal, High 
Court dismissing the sujt as barred by limitation-Validity of-Held, under 
the provisions of the Act, suit for redemption of mortgage can be filed "at any 
time after the commencement of the Act"-Expression "at any time" indicates D 
legislative intention of providing a fresh opportunity to the debtor for 
obtaining relief under the Act-Thus, High Court erred in dismissing the suit 
as barred by limitation-limitation Act, 1963. 
Ss. 5 and 9-Relief to debtors-Provision granting-Scope of-Held, 
has got overriding effect over any law, agreement, contract or decree contrary E 
to the provisions of the Act. 
Words & Phrases 
"at any time"-Meaning of in the context of S.6 of the Himachal 
Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976. 
F 
Father of the appellants mortgaged the suit property in favour of father 
of the respondents in the year 1946. Appellants successors to the suit land, 
filed an application for restitution which was dismissed by Collector as barred 
by limitation. Aggrieved, appellants, in the year 1981, filed a suit for 
possession of mortgaged property under Ss.4 and 5 of the Himachal Pradesh G 
Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (Act 31of1976). Trial Court, while rejecting the 
contention of respondents that the suit was barred by limitation, dismissed it 
on the ground that it was not maintainable after being dismissed by the 
Collector. On appeal, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit by reversing 
the findings of non-maintainability of the suit and confirmed the finding that H 
803 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001) 3 S.C.R. 
A the suit was filed within time. However, on second appeal, High Court reversed 
. 
f 
·, 
the concurrent findings.of the courts below on the question of limitation and 
B 
dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal. 
""-
Allowing the appeal, the C?.urt 
HELD: 1.1. Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction ~ct,-1976 provides a fresh 
cause of action to the debtor/mortgagor to recover the mortgaged property. 
Thus, High Court was not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants 
Mr 
/nder Ss.4 and 5 of the Act as barred by limitation.1808-H; 809-F; 805-B) 
1.~. The object of the Act and the scheme underlying it was to grant 
C relief to debtors and enable them to get back properties mortgaged by tf!em 
·with p'ossession for a loan. The use of the expression "at any time' for making 
an ~pplication or filing a suit is indicative of the legislative intent that the 
Act provides a fresh opportunity to the debtor for getting relief under the 
Act. The legislature has taken care to make the relevant provisions of the 
Act granting relief to debtors by giving overriding effect over any law, 
D agreement, contract or decree contrary to the provisions of the Act. 
1808-G-H; 809-A] 
1.3. The High Court erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the 
courts below on the errpneous assumption that the suit was one for redemption 
of the mortgage simpliciter. The reason given by the High Court in support 
E of the finding that the suit was barred by limitation is that more than 30 years 
had elapsed since the date of the property mortgaged. The provisions in section 
27 of the Limitation Act has been considered in support of the finding which 
is fallacious. It defeats the object and the purpose of the statute enacted by 
the legislature specially to give relief to debtors in the State. The first 
F ·· appeUate Coifrlrtghtly held that the suit was one for recovery of possession 
from the mortgagee who was in unauthorized possession of the mortgaged 
property after the mortgage loan was satisfied. The cause of action for filing 
such a suit under the Act arose when the enactment was enforced in 1979. 
Thus, viewed from that angle the suit was filed in time and the trial Court 
and the first appellate Court rightly recorded the findings to tha_t effect. 
G 
1809-E, B-C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2451of1997. 
From the Juggmentiand Order dated 27.11.96 of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court in R.S-.A. No. 329 of 1989. 
'

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.