Before Mehar Chand Mahajan and A. N. Bhandari, JJ.
RAI SINGH and others – Plaintiffs-Appellants
versus
ALLAH DIN and others – Respondents-Defendants

Second Appeal No. 1378 of 1945, decide don 23rd June, 1947, from the decree of the Court of the District Judge, Amritsar, dated 28th March, 1945.

(a) Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act (VII of 1934), S. 31 – Usufructuary mortgage cannot be redeemed by making a deposit under.

There is no justification for the proposition that a usufructuary mortgage can be redeemed by making a deposit in the terms of section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. [p. 114].

It cannot be held that the amount borrowed by a mortgagor on the foot of a usufructuary mortgage can be described in the terms or the language of section 312 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. [p. 113].

I. L. R. 1941 Lah. 71 F. B. followed.
(b) Interpretation of statutes – General provision cannot applied where special provision laid down.

It is an admitted canon of the construction of statutes that when a special procedure has been laid down and a special provision has been made on a particular subject then to that subject a general provision of the statute cannot be applied.

Jagan Nath Seth, for Appellant.
Harbans Singh, for Respondent.