- (1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court, but was decreed in appeal.
(2.) The dispute relates to the redemption of two-third share of the agricultural land measuring 81 bighas 13 biswas which was mortgaged by the ancestors of Lal Dass, defendant, with the ancestors of Dan Singh, the father of the plaintiff-respondents and Milkhi Ram, defendant. The land, in dispute was mortgaged as is evidenced from the mutation, Exhibit P-9, in favour of Amir Singh, Jangir Singh and Pritam Singh. Amar Singh, son of Amir Singh, mortgaged sold the mortgagee rights to the extent of one-sixth share to Milkhi Ram, defendant, on July 6, 1932, through registered deed, Exhibit D-21, while the sons of Pritam Singh, aforesaid, sold their mortgagee rights to Tulsi Ram somewhere in 205 Bk. Tulsi Ram aforesaid sold his mortgagee rights to Dan Singh, the father of the plaintiffs, on April 19, 1945. Mst. Bishno, the widow of Pritam Dass, mortgagor, successfully got redeemed one third share of the said mortgaged land from Buta Singh and Sucha Singh, sons of Jangir Singh, mortgagee. The present suit related to two-third share of the mortgaged land which was initially filed by Dhan Singh and after his death, his sons, the plaintiffs-respondents continued the same as his legal representatives. Milkhi Ram, the defendant-mortgagee of the one-sixth share of the suit land did not contest the order of redemption passed by the Collector, Bhatinda, dated March 6, 1968, granting application of Lal Dass, defendant, on payment of the redemption amount. Dan Singh the father of the plaintiffs-respondents, filed the suit for declaration under Section 10 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, alleging that the order dated March 6, 1968, Exhibit P-10, to be legal and not liable to be set aside. Lal Dass, defendant asserted his ownership of the land, in dispute, and his right to redeem the same beside alleging that the application for redemption was within time as the acknowledgments by the mortgagees of the subsisting mortgage gave fresh period of limitation. The trial Court found that the acknowledgment of Amar Singh, mortgagee-defendant, in Exhibit D-21, further mortgaging his rights on July 6, 1932, amounted to an acknowledgment of the existing mortgage and, thus was covered under the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, on the basis of the said acknowledgment, the application filed before the Collector on behalf of Lal Dass, defendant was held to be within time. As a result, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the sale-deed Exhibit D-21 and the other documents Exhibit D-1, D-2, D-14 and D-15 did not amount to an acknowledgment and that the application filed before the Collector on behalf of Lal Dass, defendant, could not be held to be within time. In coming to this conclusion, the reliance was also placed on Tilak Ram v. Nathu, 1967 AIR(SC) 935. Consequently, the plaintiffs, suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the documents Exhibit D-21, D-1, D-2, D-14 and D-15 clearly provide that the mortgagees acknowledged their liability of redemption of the suit land, and, therefore, the same amounted to an acknowledgment and, thus, the application filed before the Collector on September 6, 1966, was within time. According to the learned counsel, the decision of the Supreme Court in Tilak Ram's case has no applicability to the facts of the present case.;