SHIV LAL & ORS. versus CHET RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 09-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHIV LAL & ORS. 
v. 
CHET RAM & ORS. 
September 9, 1970 ' 
[J. C. SHAH. K. S. ffEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Evidence Act (I of 1872), ss. 90 and I 14(e) and Puniab Land Revenue 
Act, s. 44-Pres111nptions under-Scope of. 
A 
B 
Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act (2 o/ 1913), s. 4--Scope of. 
Suits were filed by the representatives of the mortgagors to redeem 
certain mortgages beyond 60 years from the date11 of the mortgages. 
In 
C 
order to get over the bar of limitation the plaintiffs relied upon certain 
acknowledgments made by the m6rtgagors. 
The acknowledgments were 
alleged to have been made more than 30 years ago in mutation proceed-
ings and certified copies of the statements were produced. With respect to 
some mortgages, applicants were made under s. 4 of the Redemption of 
Mortgage11 (Punjab) Act, 1913, and they were dismissed under s. 10. It 
was contended that the suits filed with respect to those mortgages were 
within time under s. 12 of that Act, because, they were filed within one 
D 
year of the date of the dismissal of the applications. 
HELD : (I) As the originals of the acknowledgments were not pro-
duced and no :,vitness was examined to speak to the fact that the persons 
who were shown to have signed the originals have in fact signed them 
or that they were the mortgagors or their representatives, there was no proof 
of the signatures; and the Court cannot raise any presumption under s. 90 of 
the Evidence Act. [106 F·O] 
· 
· 
E 
Harihar Prasad Singh v. Mst. of Munslzi Nath Prasad [1956] S.C.R. 
1, followed. 
Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act does not apply because the identi-
fication of an executant or the genuineness of a signature in a statement 
filed before an official has nothing to do with the regularity oi his act, 
unless he had a duty to take the sign&ture in his pre;euce and to identify 
F 
the person who signed. [107 B-C] 
Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act deals with the presumption 
as regards entries in the record of rights, but this case is not concerned 
with any such entry. [107 Al 
(2) Secion 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, 
merely provides that a summary order made under "· 6 to 11 of that Act 
becomes final unless a suit to establish the right< of the mortgagors is insti-
tuted within the prescribed period oi one year. 
From this provision it 
rar;not b' held that the period of limitation fixed for redemption of mort• 
gages is enlarged. [108 G·Hl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1250 and 
12'1 of 1966. 
· 
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated 
April 1, 1965 of the Poojab High Court in Civil Regular Second 
Appeals Nos. 138 and 139 of 1964. 
G 
H 
SHIV LAL v. CHET RAM (liegde, J.) 
105 
A 
K. L. Gosain and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants (in both 
B 
the appeals) . 
Naunit Lal, for the respondents Nos. ! to 7 and 9 (in both 
the appeals) . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. The aJ:lpellants in these appeals are the representa-
tives of the mortgagees of the suit properties. The respondents 
in both these appeals claim to represent the interest of the mortga-
gors. Civil Appeal No. 1250 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 280 
of 1961 in the court of Senior Sub Judge;Rvhtak and Civil Appeal 
c 
No. 1251 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 334 of 1961 on the file 
of the same judge. 
Both the suits were suits for redemption. 
The trial court dismissed both the suits on two grounds viz. ( 1 j 
D 
E 
that Kura, the person from whom the plaintiffs claim to have 
purchased the nghts of the mortgagors was incapable of entering 
into a contract as he was insane. Hence the sale deeds executed 
by him are void and ( 2) the claim for redemption in respect of 
the various mortgages sought to be redeemed excepting the one 
executed on April 26, 1912 is barred by limitation. The learned 
District Judge allowed the appeals and decreed both the suit& 
excepting as regards the mortgage dated January 20, 1878. In 
second appeal Capoor J. of the Punjab High Court confirmed the 
decision of the learned District Judge. 
The Letters Patent 
Appeals filed by the appellants were summarily dismissed. There-
after these appeals were brought after obtaining special leave from 
this Court. 
Both the learned District Judge as well as the learned Judge 
of the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion that 
there is no satisfactory evidence to show that Kura was insane at 
F 
the time he sold the suit proper

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