1920 (1) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Redemption suit filed by the plaintiff in 1914 to redeem and recover property mortgaged in 1902.
2. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 220 of 1905 to redeem the mortgage, withdrew it, and brought a fresh suit eight years later.
3. Dismissal of plaintiff's suit for not complying with conditions imposed in the order allowing withdrawal of the first suit.
4. Interpretation of the nature of the suit filed in 1905 and the impact of the order made by the Court in the previous suit on the limitation period for redemption.
5. Whether the present suit is beyond the time limit of two years as per the order allowing withdrawal of the first suit.
6. The effect of a Court decision against the existence of the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee on the right to bring a suit for redemption.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered a redemption suit filed by the plaintiff in 1914 to redeem a property mortgaged in 1902. The plaintiff had previously filed Suit No. 220 of 1905 to redeem the mortgage but withdrew it. The Court noted that the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit in 1914 was based on non-compliance with the conditions set when withdrawing the first suit, which required bringing a fresh suit within two years and paying the costs of the defendants from the initial suit.

2. The Court emphasized the importance of understanding the nature of the suit filed in 1905 and the impact of the Court's order on the limitation period for redemption. It was highlighted that as long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee existed, the right to redeem the mortgage remained valid within the period allowed by law. The Court clarified that merely filing and withdrawing a suit does not extinguish the right to redeem unless there is a specific decision declaring no mortgage exists.

3. Justice Heaton focused on whether the present suit was time-barred, considering the two-year limit imposed when the plaintiff withdrew the initial suit. He referred to Section 374 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, stating that the law of limitation is not affected when leave is granted. He opined that imposing a two-year limitation was not permissible, indicating that the suit was within the time limit despite eight years passing. He also discussed the significance of a Court decision against the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship on the right to bring a redemption suit.

4. The Court ultimately reversed the decree and remanded the case for further findings on facts, emphasizing that the order made in the previous suit should not have affected the plaintiff's right to redeem within the statutory limitation period. The judgment highlighted the need to consider the existence of the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship and the impact of Court decisions on the right to bring redemption suits, ensuring that procedural requirements do not unduly restrict substantive rights in property matters.