Judgment

Shah, J.-These two appeals between the same parties, arise out of mortgage of two pieces of agricultural land in Mandsaur-one mortgage deed is executed on 18th June, 1932 and another on 26th July, 1934. At present, we would refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1995. Relying upon registered mortgage deed executed on 26.7.1934 by one Hardeodas who was the power of attorney holder of Dwarkadas, respondents-heirs of the deceased Dwarka Das-filed Civil Suit No. 112-A/68 on 10th August, 1968 before the Civil Judge, Mandsaur for redemption of 1/3rd share in agricultural land bearing survey No. 1639 situated at Mandsaur. The deed prescribed eleven years as the mortgage period with a specific condition that the mortgage money was not to carry interest and the mortgage was made in favour of appellant which is a Community, namely, Shree Panch Nagar Parakh Jankoopura, Mandsaur. The Trial Court decreed the suit for redemption of possessory mortgage on payment of mortgage money and cost which is confirmed in Appeal and Second Appeal.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that courts below committed patent error in arriving at the conclusion that suit for redemption filed by the plaintiff would be governed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 without appreciating the fact that there was specific provision under the Act known as ‘Qanoon Ryotwari’ for redemption of mortgage of Pukhta Maurusi (class of tenants). It is submitted that Dwarka­das, original mortgagor was ‘Pukhta Maurusi’ tenant and for redemption of such mortgage, the rights of the parties were governed under the special provisions of Qanoon Ryotwari, Gwalior State Samvat 1974 (1917 A.D.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Ryotwari Act”). It is contended that three years’ period of limitation for redemption of such mortgage is provided under Section 275 of the Ryotwari Act. Hence, the suit filed in 1968 was on the face of it barred by period of limitation. According to the learned counsel, right to sue accrued after eleven years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed, i.e. on 26.7.1945 and three years’ period would be over in the month of July 1948. It is his further contention that the mortgagee in possession of tenancy rights of Pukhta Maurusi gets his rights transferred in his favour under the provisions of the Ryotwari Act. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 appellant became Bhumi-Swami.

3. At the time of hearing of the appeal as well as in the written submissions made by the respondents, it is not disputed that the Ryotwari Act was applicable to the lands in dispute. On 17th August, 1933, eight sections of Qanoon Mal Gwalior State Samvat 1983 (1926 A.D.), namely, Sections 268, 269, 271. 272, 274, 275, 278 and 280 were engrafted into the Ryotwari Act. On 15th August, 1950, the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950) became applicable to land tenures in Mandsaur and it repealed Qanoon Ryotwari and certain provisions of Qanoon Mal. The 1950 Act was repealed on 2nd October, 1959 by Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Act No. 2 of 1959).

4. For considering the first contention whether the suit filed in 1968 is barred by the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 275 of the Ryotwari Act, we would first refer to relevant provisions of the said Act:-

“Section 1. (1) It is expedient that this Act shall be called `Qanoon Ryotwari Gwalior State Samvat 1974 .

(2) .........................

(3) .........................

(4) This Act shall come into force on 1st October, 1917.”

Definitions

Section 2. “In villages, where there is no intermediary like Zamindar, Mustajar, Supurdidar, between theState and the tenant, and rent is recovered by the Government from directly from the tenant, such administration is called `Ryotwari’, and such vil­lages are called `Ryotwari villages’.”

Section 5. “ Pukhta Maurusi’ means a Maurusi tenant who got Maurusi Patta at the