- (1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29/07/1980 of the First Appellate Court, Faridkot reversing on appeal those of the trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for redemption of the suit land.
(2.) The facts which are above controversy are that Sher Singh was the owner of land measuring 58 Kanals 5 marlas. He mortgaged this land with the defendants Gurnaib Singh, Surjit Singh and Ajaib Singh for a consideration of Rs. 12,000.00 under registered deed of mortgage dated 12/06/1968. He subsequently sold this land under mortgage along with some other land to Mangal Singh, Gurmit Singh and Smt. Surinder Paul Kaur plaintiffs and one Hari Singh under sale deed dated 2/07/1970 and at that time, he had left an amount of Rs. 12,000.00 by way of trust with the plaintiffs and Hari Singh for payment to the mortgagees with a view to get the suit land redeemed. Then the plaintiffs filed a petition for the redemption of the suit land, under Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Collector. The Collector dismissed this petition vide order dated 11/05/1976. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an application before the Collector for the restoration of their petition for redemption. However, the Collector dismissed this application also vide his order dated 6/10/1977 (Ex. D-1).
(3.) In the above background, the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge on 25/02/1978 for redemption of the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds, one of which was that the suit to redeem the suit land was barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge put the parties to trial on the following grounds :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the suit land on payment of Rs. 12,000.00 to the defendants? O.P.P. 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP. 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit has not been filed at the time stipulated in the mortgage deed? If so, to what effect? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are barred from acquiring the suit land by way of redemption in view of the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Punjab Land Reforms Act? OPD. 6. Relief. The learned trial Judge decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and held that the suit was barred by limitation and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to redeem the suit land. Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants and in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, challenged the same in the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on, issue Nos. 1 and 2, decided these issues in favour of the plaintiffs and as a consequece thereto, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendants have challenged the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in this Regular Second Appeal. ;