Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands
Act, 1964
S. 14(2) read with Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 92 & 9’5 and Limitation Act, 1908, Section 19 and Articles 132& 148–Land mortgaged with non-Muslims–One mortgagor redeemed his share and also got redeemed share of other mortgagor and stepped in shoes of mortgagee–Application for redemption–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Whether limitation runs from date of original mortgage (14.8.1880) or date of redemption by co-mortgagor (12.8.1930)–Question of–Under amended Section 92 and 95 of T.P. Act, a mortgagor, on redeeming share of property of his associate, has same rights as mortgagee from whom he redeems mortgage–Under Article 148 of Limitation Act, period of 60 years is provided for redemption after which substantive right of mortgagor is extinguished–In this case, predecessor-in-interest of appellants redeemed his own share and also share of predecessor-in-interest of respondents in 1930–Held: Terminus a quo in this case cannot be dates when predecessor-in-interest of appellants redeemed land by oral mutations in 1930, but time would run from date of original mortgage in 1880. PLJ 1991 Revenue 1
S.14(2) read with Limitation Act, 1908, Section 19 and Article 132–Mortgaged land–Redemption by one share-holder of his own share and that of his associate–Application for redemption–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Limitation in this case would run from 14.8.1880, date of original mortgage with non-Muslim by both predecessors-in-interest of appellants and respondents–Predecessor-in-interest of appellants took lead while predecessor-in-interest of respondents did not bother and reamined behind–He and his successors (respondents) slept over issue and made no attempts to secure an acknowledgment of liability within meaning of Section 19 of Limitation Act–Respondents made no effort to invoke Article 132 of Limitation Act to their advantage–They very conveniently allowed 12 years from 1930 onwards to slip away–Held: Respondents had no case but they were unduly favoured by both lower courts and their orders are not sustainable–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Revenue 1