Ramjan v. Rashid Ahmad And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH RSA-5829-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.11.2021 RAMJAN ..Appellant ASHOK KUMAR 2021.11.03 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Versus

RASHID AHMAD AND OTHERS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *** ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral) The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts. CM No.16054-C of 2018 For the reasons contained in the application, same is allowed and delay of 130 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Case Defendant No.1 assails the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing the suit for possession by way of the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for passing a decree by claiming that they are owners of 9 kanals and 15 marlas of land which was mortgaged in the year 1944 vide mutation No.512 and

513. The defendants contested the suit with the assertion that the plaintiffs left the possession with an intention not to claim back and therefore, their possession has riped into title because of adverse possession. Both the

RSA-5829-2018 (O&M) ASHOK KUMAR 2021.11.03 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Courts, after recording a finding that the mortgage of the suit land in the year 1944 is proved, has passed a decree for redemption of the mortgage. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that in view of Section 4 of The Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, the plaintiffs were required to first file the suit before the Collector. No doubt, the aforesaid Act enables a mortgagor to pray for redemption by filing a summary suit, however, the provisions of the Act do not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Even after the Collector passes an order in the proceedings under the Act, the parties are entitled to file a civil suit under Section 12 of the 1913 Act. Hence, no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

01.11.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) ashok JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No