Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tayyub Hussain And Ors vs Deen Mohammad And Ors on 30 October, 2014
Author: Fateh Deep Singh
Bench: Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. RSA No.4442 of 2014 (O&M)
Tayub Hussain and others
Appellants
Versus
Deen Mohammad and others
Respondents
2. RSA No.4475 of 2014 (O&M)
Tayub Hussain and others
Appellants
Versus
Deen Mohammad and others
Respondents
Date of decision: 30th October, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Bawa, Advocate for the appellants.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
Both these appeals detailed above pertain to same very parties, in respect of which similar question qua the same very property having crept in are being decided together.
The claim of the plaintiff/appellants Tayub Hussain and others is based on the contentions that the predecessor in interest of the defendants had mortgaged the suit property with the plaintiffs, which was never redeemed nor the plaintiffs or their predecessor in RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.14 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA Nos.4442 & 4475 of 2014 (O&M) 2 interest ever relinquished their rights over this property and the claim in brief of the plaintiffs is that with the efflux of time the same has matured into their ownership and hence sought a declaration to that effect with consequential relief of permanent injunction.
The unison stand of the defendants (plaintiffs in the other matter out of which RSA No.4475 of 2014 has arisen) is that their predecessors in interest had mortgaged the property with the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs (defendants in other matter) before 1906-07 for a sum of `20 and a suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed by them and the same stood decreed through findings dated 23.07.2013 of the trial Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Nuh and claimed the present suit to be a mere counterblast to their suit alleging that their right to redemption was subsisting and the question of limitation does not come into play. In the suit of Tayub Hussain and others, learned trial Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Nuh through its judgment and decree dated 23.02.2013 dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs which findings of both the trial Courts were upheld by the first appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mewat through judgments and decrees both dated 20.05.2014. That is how the parties are before this Court.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the appellants.
Hon'ble the Apex Court while granting leave in SLP titled as 'Singh Ram (D) through LRs v. Sheo Ram & others' (Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008, decided on 21.08.2014), a 3-Judge Bench RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.14 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA Nos.4442 & 4475 of 2014 (O&M) 3 has upheld the findings of Full Bench of this Court in the case of 'Lachhman Singh v. Natha Singh through Harnam Singh & others' reported in 1940 AIR Lahore 401 while adjudicating on the question as to the right of mortgagor to redeem and applicability of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act coupled with the right to redeem or recover possession if accrues on the date of mortgage itself or unless a different time is agreed between the parties. It has been held by their Lordships that when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly out of payment or deposit by mortgagor until then limitation does not start for the purpose of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act; besides holding that an usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he has become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage. Thus, from it stands established firstly that the plaintiffs have no cause to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to seek a declaration to that effect much less the question of limitation having come into play.
There have been concurrent findings of both the Courts below which do not suffer from any patent illegality and thus, being devoid of any merit, both the appeals stand dismissed.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE October 30, 2014 rps RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.14 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court