Kamta Singh and Others vs Ram Autar Singh and Others

Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.—The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for redemption out of which this application arises with respect to certain agricultural land, detailed in the plaint. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the mortgage relied on by the plaintiffs was redeemed long ago and thereafter the suit land was auction-sold in execution of a decree and was purchased by the landlord from whom the defendants got a settlement. The trial Court accepted the plaintiff case and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed. In the meantime, a notification u/s 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued in the area concerned. A question, therefore, arose as to whether the suit and appeal abated. The lower appellate Court held in favour of abatement and the suit was disposed of accordingly.

When this case was placed for hearing before me in 1979, I referred it to a Division Bench for authoritatively deciding the question as to whether a suit for redemption abates u/s 4(c) of the Act or not. Since then a Division Bench of the Court in Janak Sah and Ors. v. Jamuna Sah and Ors. 1980 B.B.C.J. 544. has answered the point in the negative holding that a suit for redemption, not being a suit for declaration of right or interest in any land, will not abate u/s 4(c) of the Act. In that view I hold that the lower appellate Court was wrong in passing the impugned judgment which is set aside.

The revision application is accordingly allowed and the case is remitted back to the lower appellate Court for deciding the title appeal on merits. There will be no order as to costs.