TUNDAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. versus MUNSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

TUNDAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MUNSHI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
[ARlJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913-Sections 4 and 12-Suit 
for redemption of mortgage property-Dismissal of, by Collector-Thereafier, 
another suit filed beyond one year, decreed in favour of mortgagor- C 
Mortgagee's case that suit dismissed on merits by Collector, as such instant 
suit barred by limitation-On appeal held: Findings of Collector become 
conclusive between mortgagee and mortgagor if no suit is filed within one 
year and order cannot be assailed-Section 12 prohibits substance of order 
and not the form-Substance of order determines the application of period 
of limitation-Substance of order by Collector reveals that order not recorded D 
on merits-Thus, it cannot be said that suit was barred by limitation-Orders 
of courts below not perverse or illegal-Limitation Act, 1963. 
Owner of the agricultural land mortgaged the land with possession with 
the original appellant-mortgagee for consideration of certain amount. The 
owner-mortgagor died and her heirs, respondent-mortgagors filed suit for E 
redemption under section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgagors Act, 
1930. Collector dismissed the suit since the parties did not place sufficient 
evidence on record. Two of the respondents who acquired rights in the suit 
land, filed suit for redemption after one year. Trial Court decreed the suit 
subject to payment to appellant no. I. Appellant then filed an appeal which F 
was dismissed. Regular Second Appeals were also dismissed. Hence, the 
present appeals. 
Appellant-mortgagees contended that the order of the Collector 
dismissing the suit filed under section 4 was based on merits after 
scrutinizing the entire evidence placed on record, as such the suit was barred G 
by limitation since it was not filed within one year of the dismissal of the suit. 
Respondent-mortgagors contended that both the First Appellate Court 
and High Court held on the assessment of the entire material on record that 
the Collector has not recorded any findings on the merits of the case. 
621 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l. l. If no suit was filed within a period of one year, the findings 
of the Collector become conclusive between the mortgagee and the mortgagor 
and it is not open to assail the order of the Collector after one year in a suit 
of foreclosure or sale by the mortgagee. Section 12 of the Punjab Redemption 
B of Mortgagors Act, 1930 prohibits the substance of the order and not the form 
in which the order is couched by the Collector. Even if by the order, the petition 
is dismissed not the form of the order but the substance will determine the 
application of the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act. 
(627-D-F( 
C 
1.2. The net substance of the order of the Collector reveals that the said 
D 
order was not recorded on merits. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit was 
barred by limitation as the order of the Collector was not challenged by the 
respondents within one year. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality i'I 
the judgment and decree of the courts below warranting interference. 
[627-F[ 
Harbans Singh and Anr. v. Guran Ditta Singh and Anr., (19911 2 SCC 
523 and Shiv/al & Ors. v. Sultan & Ors., [1969[ 2 SCC 883, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIClTON: Civil Appeal Nos. 14185-14188 of 
1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5. !.1995 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. Nos. 724/1985, 1740/1990, 725/ 
1985 and 307/199!. 
Madhu Tewatia and Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Appellants. 
F 
Arvind Kumar, Poonam Prasad and Chander Shekhar for the 
Rtspondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. These appeals are directed against 
the common judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1995 passed by the 
G learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing 
Regular Second Appeal Nos. 724/1985, l 740/1990, 725/1985 and 307/199 l filed 
by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree of the 
Additional District Judge (ll), Faridabad. The Additional District Judge has 
dismissed the Civil Appeal No. JO I of 1983 preferred by original defendant-
H appellant Tundal against the judgment dated 7th June, 1983 of Sub-Judge 
TUNDAL(DEAD)BYLRS. r. MUNSHI(LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,J.] 
623 
First Class, Palwal, decreei

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