CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Gurmej Kaur vs Pritam Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 September 1996 · Citation: (1997) 4 LLR 244 : (1996) PLJ 642 : (1997) 2 RCR(Civil) 100

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K.Kapoor, J
CASE NUMBER
Regular Second Apeal No. 1313 of 1991
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 366 words

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is defendants'' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge affirming in appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2.

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by means of redemption of land measuring 29 Kanals 10 Marlas as per details given in the headnote of the plaint on payment of Rs. 4000/ or any other sum which may be determined by the Court.

3.

The claim was resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds but later on resisted the claim on the ground of bar of limitation. As per case of the defendants, plaintiff''s application for redemption of land under Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act No. 2 of 1913 having been dismissed, suit could only be filed within one year from the date of dismissal in view of Article 100 of the Limitation Act. The Collector dismissed the application of the plaintiff on 16.2.1970 whereas the suit has been filed on 18.10.1986. Both the Courts on considering the matter found no substance and so decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

4.

Before me, learned counsel for the appellants in all fairness concedes that the matter has now been settled by the decision of the Apex Court in case reported as Harbans Singh etc. v. Guran Ditta Singh etc., 1991(2) RRR 7 (P&H) : JT 1991(2) SC 138 and so the plea of limitation raised has no merit. The Court in Harbans Singh''s case has considered the provisions contained in Sections 4, 11, 12 and 13 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act No. 2 of 1913 and has held that "though application for redemption was dismissed under Section 11 of the Act and became conclusive under Section 12 of the Act, the mortgagor''s right to redemption is not barred. A suit for redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act will be maintainable and civil Court has got jurisdiction to grant the decree of redemption."

5.

No other point has been raised or claimed.

6.

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Harbans Singh''s case (supra), the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.