MOHINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1185 · Decided: 23-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
MO HINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JANUARY23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHAAND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
B 
.. 
Mortgage: 
Order of District Collector directing redemption of mortgaged property 
attained finality pursuant to dismissal of SLP-Objections filed by Appellant c 
in execution of the order of redemption-His contention that said property 
was earlier mortgaged in favour of him and his brother, which had not 
been redeemed-Held: Purported receipt by mortgagor from Appellant and 
his brother not proved, hence, cannot be relied upon-Appellant raised 
unnecessary objections in execution of order of redemption-Even otherwise, 
D 
his contention barred by principle of constructive res judicata--Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-Res judicata--Constructive res judicata. 
The District Collector passed order directing redemption of mortgaged 
property. That order attained finality pursuant to dismissal ofSLP by this 
E 
Court. In proceedings for execution of the order of redemption, Appellant 
filed objections. He contended that the said property was earlier mortgaged 
in favour of him and his brother, which had not heen redeemed. The 
property was allegedly mortgaged in favour of Appellant and his brother on 
purported receipt of a sum ofRs.425. Objections filed by the appellant in 
the said proceedings were rejected. However, appeal preferred by appellant 
F 
) 
was allowed. But the order was set aside in second appeal by the Financial 
Commissioner, Revenue. High Court upheld the order of the Financial 
Commissioner. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The contention of the appellant, that keeping in view the 
fact that the first mortgage was not redeemed, the second mortgage could 
not have been directed to be redeemed, in the facts and circumstances oi 
the case, is misconceived. [Para 12) [1189-A) 
H 
1185 
1186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. From the conduct of the parties, it is evident that while creating 
~ 
the purported second mortgage, the first mortgage was redeemed. The 
. ; 
second mortgage deed was registered. There was no reason why it was not 
acted upon. [Para 13] [1189-B] 
B 
2.1. In the civil suit, a finding of fact had been arrived at that the order 
for redemption was valid in law. The said decree passed by the Civil Court 
attained finality. [Para 15] [1189-E] 
1 .... 
2.2. Contention of the appellant that the factum in regard to the 
c 
issuance of the said receipt of Rs. 425 having not been brought on records 
in the earlier proceedings, the impugned order cannot be sustained is 
wholly fallacious. If the receipt in question was to be brought on record, it 
was for the appellant to do so. He having failed to do so, now cannot be 
permitted to turn round and contend that the said receipt should be taken 
into consideration by this Court. [Para 16] [1189-F] 
D 
2.3. The Financial Commissioner in his order has taken into 
consideration all aspects of the matter. It has been found that miscarriage 
of justice had taken place. Keeping in view the factual background obtaining 
in this case, it is held that the appellant had raised unnecessary objections 
E 
in execution of the order of redemption passed by the Collector. Even 
otherwise, the contention of the appellant is evidently barred by the 
principles of constructive res judicata. In any event, the said purported 
receipt having not been proved in accordance with law, no reliance can be 
placed thereupon. [Paras 17 & 18] [1189-G-H, 1190-A] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 325 of2007. 
r 
From the Judgment/Final Order dated 10.4.2003 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 5717/2003. 
G 
Rajesh Srivastava for the Appellant. 
Chandra Prakash Pandey, Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Arora 
and Sudarshan S. Rawat for the Respondents. 
-t 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
) 
) 
... 
) 
.. 
) 
MOHINDERSINGHv. STATE [SINHA,J.] 
1187 
S.B. SINHA, J. : 1. Leave granted. 
A 
2. Assailing an order dated 28.08.2002 passed by the Financial 
Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, the appellant herein filed a writ petition 
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by reason of the impugned 
judgment dated 10.04.2003 has been dismissed. 
B 
3. The fact of the matter is as under: 
One Telu Ram s/o Hira, resident ofKotla Power House, Tehsil Anandpur 
Sahib District Ropar, Punjab mortgaged 38 K 14 M ofland with the appellant 
and his brother Lach

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