Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1047 of 1963‑64, decided on 27th July 1965, District Campbellpur.

O. IX, r. 4‑ Case (Revision) adjourned at instance of counsel for petitioner‑Counsel absent on next date of hearing but petitioner present in person- Case considered on merits in counsel's absence and revision petition accepted.

S. 4‑Limitation for application for redemption‑Mortgage mutation sanctioned on 26‑6‑1899‑Application for redemption made on 11‑2‑1963‑Held, within time in view of provisions of S. 20 (2), Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑Mortgagee in possession‑Not making any payment to anybody assumed to be receiving produce of land‑Such receipt a payment within meaning of S. 20 (2), Limi tation Act (IX of 1908).

Petitioner in person.

Mian Muhammad Shaft for Respondents.

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 22nd of October 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the respondents.

The facts of the case are that originally Mst. Bakhat Bhari widow of Hayat mortgaged the land in question with Habib, son of Panah and mutation No. 340 was sanctioned on 26‑6‑1899. After that year, a large number of transactions took place and mutations were sanctioned. The latest position was that on the side of the mortgagors, the sole right holder remained Allah Ditta petitioner, while in the line of mortgagees, there remained Khan Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Khan and Sher Khan respon dents. On 11‑2‑1963, the petitioner applied for the redemption of the mortgage. The Collector held the petition to be within time and ordered redemption of the land in question on payment of Rs. 13‑75. The amount was deposited in the treasury on 6‑9‑1963. Khan respondent went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who held that the petition was time barred and, therefore, accepted the appeal. Hence this revision.

I partly heard the arguments on 4‑5‑1965. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned till today. He is, however, not present today in spite of the fact that today's date of hearing was fixed in his presence. I have, however, considered the case on merits in his absence.

Section 20(2) of the Limitation Act is quite clear on the point. In this case, the mortgagee has been admittedly in possession. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, objected that there is no evidence that the mortgagee received any produce from the land. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. When the mortgagee is, in possession of the land in question and does not make any payment to anybody, it is assumed that he is receiv ing the produce of the land and the provisions of subsection (2) of section 20 of the Limitation Act, would, therefore, be attracted The application would, be thus in time.

In these circumstances, I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commessioner and direct that the order passed by the learned Collector shall be implemented.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.