- (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit in the following circumstances. Biru and Munshi were the owners of the land. They had mortgaged the land with certain Muslims who became evacuee interest vested in the Custodian, and by reason of the Evacuee (Separation of Interest) Act, 1951, the Competent Officer transferred the mortgagee rights to Hari Singh. The land being Nazool had vested in the State. The Collector, Patiala, vide his order dated 7th July, 1961, allotted this land to Harijan Co-operative Society of village Chupki. Hari Singh appealed against this order of transfer but without success. Thereafter, the Harijan Co-operative Society filed an application for redemption of the mortgage to which the land was subject, on 11th July, 1961. This application was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Patiala on 20-3-1962. It was held that the defendant -Society was entitled to redeem the land on payment of Rs. 220/- from Hari Singh, the present occupant who had purchased the mortgagee rights under the order of the Competent Officer. Hari Singh, was aggrieved by this order and he consequently filed this suit under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1912, on 11th of April, 1962. His sole contention was that the mortgage was beyond 60 years and thus no order of redemption could be passed. The Courts below took the view that the mortgage deed having not been produced, it could not be ascertained whether the mortgage contained a clause that the redemption would be postponed by a certain number of years and on this view of the matter the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and so also his appeal. the plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) THE short contention that has been advanced by Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal, learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant is that the date of the mortgage is clearly mentioned in Exhibits P-5 and P-6, namely 13th Asauj, 1957 Bk. , i. e. , equal to 1900 A. D. The limitation for redemption expired in 1960, i. e. , sixty years expired on that date. The application for redemption was filed on 11th of July, 1961. The application is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation provided the period of limitation has to run from 13th Asauj, 1957 Bk. Mr. Kaushal relies on the decision of the Privy Council in Hardat Ram v. Paras Nath, AIR 1948 PC 85, wherein their Lordships made the following observations: "by force of Sections 17 (1) (a) and 19 of the Act of 1940, protection from sale is given in proceeding under the Act of 1934, to the land of an 'agriculturist' the local rate payable by whom or recoverable from whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per annum; such land being deemed to be 'protected land' as defined in the Act of 1934. The question in dispute between the parties to this appeal is whether for the purposes of the protection thus given, the members of a Joint Hindu family should be treated as a single unit, for if so treated they will not be entitled to protection in this case as will be shown presently, they being entitled to 'protection' only if they are treated separately as individual members of the family. The question is of considerable importance and arises for the first time for decision. The rulings of the Revenue Board mentioned in the order passed by Mr. Dible are not available for reference. Their Lordships have to decide the question solely by constructing the two Acts. ";