JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.- The appellants are mortgagees. The respondents are the heirs of Kala Singh, the mortgagor. Kala Singh executed three mortgages in favour of the appellants Resham Singh, Jaswant Singh and Harbans Singh on September 17, 1962, June 17, 1961 and May 31, 1962 respectively hypothecating the agricultural lands of 16 kanals 16 marlas in each of the first two mortgages and 16 kanals in the third mortgage. The mortgagor filed an application under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 2 of 1913, for short the Act. He deposited a sum of Rs 10 in each mortgage and sought redemption of the mortgages. Ultimately the parties compromised and the mortgagor agreed to pay the balance of Rs 840 to each mortgagee within a month from May 1, 1964. The Collector passed the order on compromise under Section 11 thereof on February 3, 1964. He committed default in the payment thereof. The petitions were dismissed. He filed separate suits against each mortgagee for redemption within one year under Section 12 of the Act on June 12, 1964. Pending suits he died. Thereafter the suits were dismissed. After obtaining mutation of their names in the revenue records the respondents filed separate suits for redemption of the mortgages, but beyond one year as contemplated under Section 12 read with Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The suits were dismissed by the trial court and were confirmed by the first appellate court and by the High Court in second appeals. But the Division Bench under clause (10) of the Letter of Patent allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and granted decree of redemption in terms of the prayer by judgment dated April 9, 1974. Assailing the legality thereof the appeals have been filed after obtaining leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Since common questions of facts and law arise for decision in these appeals, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The only question that was argued before the High Court and reiterated in this Court is whether the suits are barred by limitation. The contention of Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order passed by the Collector under Section 12 of the Act is conclusive between the parties unless the suits are laid under Article 14 of the Limitation Act within one year from the date of the order. Admittedly, the present suits have been filed beyond such limitation of one year. The High Court committed a grave error of law in applying the provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and the ratio of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh v. Mt. Hansraj Kanwar{AIR 1934 PC 205. He contends that the Act provides a right and remedy to the mortgagor and mortgagees. Section 12 of the Act makes the order conclusive and binding and Section 13 bars second application in that regard unless the suit is filed within one year from the date of the order. It is not open to the civil court to go behind the order of the Collector and enlarge the limitation provided under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. All the provisions of Transfer of Property Act were not applicable to State of Punjab. Certain provisions relating to sale deeds and gifts were made applicable to the State of Punjab with effect from April 1, 1955 and to the area comprised in the erstwhile Pepsu State, w.e.f. May 15, 1957. As on the date when the suits were laid, Section 60 of the Transfer of Properly Act did not apply to Punjab and so the ratio in Raghunath Singh case, AIR 1934 PC 205 is inapplicable. The High Court committed manifest error in applying Section 60. He cited decisions of Lahore High Court in support of the contention that the suit shall be laid within one year which we would advert to at a later stage. Shri Dua, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the High Court is justified in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation and the ratio of the decision cited by the appellants cannot be