9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to redeem the mortgaged land. 2. Bar of limitation for the suit. 3. Status and rights of the plaintiffs as occupancy tenants and Bhumidars. 4. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Right to Redeem the Mortgaged Land The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs had the right to redeem the land mortgaged by Ganga Prasad Rai in 1923. The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired occupancy tenant rights and Bhumidari rights by depositing ten times the land revenue. The High Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage and recover possession of the land. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the plaintiffs, as successors to the original mortgagor, were entitled to recover possession on payment of the mortgage money. 2. Bar of Limitation for the Suit The defendants contended that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation, arguing that they had been in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years. The trial court and the first appellate court had found the suit barred by time. However, the High Court reversed this finding, stating that the mortgagee's possession for over 12 years did not extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem. The Supreme Court agreed, referencing the Full Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court, which established that the mortgagor's right to redeem remains intact despite prolonged possession by the mortgagee. 3. Status and Rights of the Plaintiffs as Occupancy Tenants and Bhumidars The plaintiffs claimed to have acquired occupancy tenant rights and Bhumidari rights. The High Court found that the plaintiffs had acquired these rights through an agreement with the Zamindar in 1946, effectively succeeding the original mortgagor's rights. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiffs were declared Bhumidars by a Sanad dated October 5, 1949. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had sufficient interest in the land to redeem it from the mortgagees under Clause (a) of Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain the Suit The defendants argued that the suit for possession should have been brought in a revenue court, not a civil court. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that no such plea was raised in the lower courts. Additionally, the court referenced the five-judge bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mahabal Singh and Anr., which held that such suits are maintainable in civil courts. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb this view. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage and recover possession of the land. The suit was not barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs had the requisite rights as occupancy tenants and Bhumidars to maintain the suit. The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants were entitled to withdraw the mortgage amount deposited by the plaintiffs.
|
