SHEO LAL AND ORS. versus SULTAN & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 15-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHEO LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SULTAN & ORS. 
September 15, 1969 
40 5 
B 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A, N. GROVER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R_ede'.nption of Mortgc;ges (Punjab Act 2 of 1913) ss. 4. 9 and 12-
Appllcatton for reden1pt1011 of 111ortgage under s. 4--Assistant Collector 
dismi.ssing application relegating parties to suit in view of co111Dli::ated 
questions of fact and law involved-If Art. 14 of Lbnitation ,4ci 1908 
<.pplicable to ntbsequent suit for redetnption. 
' 
. In August. .1935 the owner of a piece of land mortgaged a part of it 
without possession to M. 
In November 1914 he mortgaged the cn;ire 
~rea of the land to A. 
Thereafter he sold his rights in the land (except 
1~ a smaU area) in May. 1943 to the plaintiffs. 
In May, 1951 the plain· 
tiffs applied under s. 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab Act 2 of 
1913) for redeeming the n1ortgage in favour of M but this application 
was rejected by the Assistant Collector on June 29. 1951. 
A suit 
filed 
by the. plaintiffs in August, 1960 in a civil court for redemption of the 
mortgage was resisted, inter alia. on the ground that it was time-barred by 
virtue of Art. 14 of the Limitation Act. 1908 as it \\'as not filed \Vithin 
one year of the rejection of the application by the Assistant Collector. 
The trial court dismissed the suit for redemption of the mortgage in favour 
of M and granted a decree for redemption of the second mortgage of 
November. 1941. The District Court. allowing an appeal, ordered redemp-
tion of the land including the mortgage in favour of M and this dechion 
was confirmed in second appeal by the High Court. 
There \\'a~ a con-
current finding by the courts helow that the petilion for redemption was 
not tried bv the Assistant Collector on the merits but that he rejected it 
holding tha·t the application raised complicated questions of fact anJ law 
and .on that account was not triable in exercise of the summary jurisdiction 
prescribed under Act 2 of 1913. 
On appeal by special leave to this Court. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal. 
The,_suit for redemption filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by the 
Law of Limitation. 
The Assistant Collector merely ordered that the case raised complicated 
questions of fact and law \vhich could ~o~ be tried in a summary pro-
ceeding. 
Such an order does not fall "'."1.th1n the t~rm.s of s. 9 of Act 2 
of I 913. 
Even if by the order the petition v.·as d1sm1ssed, not the form 
of the order. but its substance will determine the application of the period 
of limitation prescribed by Art. 14 of the Limitation Act. 
An order 
relegating the mortgagor to a civil suit for o_btaining an o~der of ~ede~1p­
tion even if it becomes final does not bar a suit fdr redemptton. for 1t raises 
no cloud on the title of the mortgagor arising out of the mortgage. 
Such 
an order ls not one which is required to be set aside. 
An order required 
to be set aside is one which the officer making it has jurisdiction to make 
it and has the effect of barring the claim for relief unless it i'> ">Ct <t"idc. 
[410 F-HJ 
L2Sup(Cl)/70-14 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[I 970J 2 S.C.R. 
Tul>i Das v. piala Ram, I.LR. (1944] Lah. 1 (F. B.) and Dewan 
A 
Chand v. Raghbir•Smgh, l.L.R. [1966] 1 Punjab 193; referred 10 and 
approved. 
C1v1L APPELLATE Jua1so1cT10N: C!vil Appeal No, 1115 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
B 
November·l8, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 1169 ot 1962. 
Rameshwar Dial and A. D. Mathur, for the appellants. 
K. S. Chawla, K. L. Mehta and S. K. Meh:a, for respondents 
Nos. 1 to 7. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
Ram Sarup was the owner of a piec~ of land mea-
suring 30 bighas 12 biswas. By· a deed dated August 16, 1935; 
Ram Sarup mortgaged without possession a part of the land mea-
suring approximately 26 bighas with one Meda. Ram Sarup on 
November 27, 1941, mortgaged with possession the entire area of 
the land to- Ananda. Ram Sarup then sold his rights in 27 bighas 
and 1 biswa of ti:.~ land on May 14, 1943 to Buru and others-who 
may be collectively called 'the plaintiffs'-for Rs. 6,000. 
The 
plaintiffs then applied on May 23, 1951, under s. 4 of the Redemp-
tion of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913 for redeeming the mort-
gage in favour of Meda. This application was rejected on June 
29, 1951. Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted on August 20, 1960, 
a suit in the civil court for redemption of the mortgage.

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