B.R.Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 213 of 1973 Gurditta Singh and Anr. v. Harbans Singh 214 of 1973 Gurditta Singh and Anr. v. Resham Singh and 215 of 1973 Gurditta Singh and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh, as the point of law involved is common to all the 3 appeals.
(2.) KALHA Singh executed 3 mortgages for Rs. 850 each in favour of Resham Singh (Respondent), Jaswant Singh (Respondent) and Harbans Singh (Respondent) on September 17, 1962, June 17, 1961 and May 31, 1962; respectively. The area of the land mortgaged in favour of Resham Singh and Jaswant Singh was 16 Kanals 16 Marias each while the area of the land mortgaged in favour of Harbans Singh was 16 Kanals. Kalha Singh filed separate petitions against each mortgagee under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), which were decided by the Collector by order dated February 3, 1964, on a compromise arrived at between the parties. The mortgagor had deposited Rs. 10 in each case as the amount on the payment of which, he alleged, he was entitled to redeem. An objection was raised by each of the mortgagees that Rs. 850 were due to him on account of the mortgage. The mortgagor, Kalha Singh, agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 840 to each mortgagee within a month of the order and each mortgagee was to deliver possession of the land mortgaged to the mortgagor on May 1, 1964, after receipt of the mortgage amount. If the mortgagor failed to make such deposit. his petition was to be deemed as dismissed. Kalha Singh defaulted in the payment of the mortgage amount and filed a separate suit against each mortgagee for redemption under Section 12 of the Act on June 12, 1964. Those suits were dismissed in default on July 22, 1964, because none appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff who had died, Instead of making an application for bringing his legal representatives on record, Gurditta, son of Kalha Singh and Attar Kaur; widow of Kalha Singh; filed 3 separate suits for possession of mortgaged land against each mortgagee by redemption on payment of the mortgage money. These suits were filed more than one year after the date of the order of the Collector dismissing the petitions of Kalha Singh and were resisted by the mortgagees on various pleas. The learned trial Court framed the following preliminary issues in each suit: (1) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of a suit under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act by order dated February 3, 1964? (2) Whether the present suit is barred by time as alleged in the written statement? (3) Whether the suit in the present form is competent? The learned trial Court decided issues 1 and 2 against the Plaintiff and in view of that decision, held that issue 3 had become redundant. Consequently, the suits were dismissed on March 16, 1966. The appeals of the Plaintiffs were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on September 3, 1966 and Regular second appeals filed against the first appellate decrees were also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on September 4, 1972, Against those judgments, the present appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent have been filed after obtaining the permission of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE only point that was argued before the learned Single Judge was whether the suits were maintainable in view of the dismissal of the petitions of Kalha Singh under the Act by the Collector on February 3, 1964 and the suits, to set aside that order, having not been filed within one year of the date of the order. It has, therefore, to be determined as to what is the effect of the dismissal of a petition under the Act by the Collector. The preamble of the Act makes it clear that it was enacted to provide a summary procedure for the redemption of certain mortgages of land in Punjab. Sections 4 to 11 of the Act provide for the making of the petitions for redemption of mortgages and the procedure for their trial. Section 6 also states the form in which the order has to be passed. Section 12 provides that any party aggrieved by an order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the Act may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage, but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive and Section 13 provides that the dismissal of a petition under the Act shall bar any further petition under the Act by the same Petitioner or his representative in. respect of the same mortgage. It is thus clear that Gurditta and Attar Kaur could not file another petition under the Act in view of the dismissal of Kalha Singh's petition on February 3, 1964, in respect of any of the three mortgages. There is, however, no provision in the Act to the effect that if a petition is dismissed by an order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the Act, the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage shall be extinguished. What is made conclusive by Section 12 of the Act, if no suit is filed, is the finding with regard to the rights of the mortgagor and the mortgagee in respect of the mortgage, which was the subject -matter of dispute before the collector in a petition under the Act. The dismissal of a petition does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh and Ors. v. Mt. Hansraj Kunwar and Ors. : A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 205, held: The provision in a decree in a suit for redemption that in case of default by the Plaintiff in payment, his case will stand "dismissed" cannot be construed as meaning that the Plaintiff was to be debarred of all right to redeem and that the decree was an order of a Court extinguishing the right to redeem within the meaning of the proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. A second suit for redemption will be maintainable in such cases.;