2009 Supreme(J&K) 441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Barin Ghosh,Muzaffar Hussain Attar, JJ.
Raja & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Special Tribunal, J&K & Ors. - Respondent
COD No. 201/2009 c/w LPA No. 129/2009 & IA Nos.205/2009 & 252/2009
Decided On : 21 October, 2009
Advocate For Respondent: G.R. Tantray
Advocate For Appellant: M.A. Qayoom
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that a suit claiming possession on the ground of an invalid mortgage inherently includes the claim for redemption, making it a suit for redemption. Additionally, the court emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 to decide redemption of the mortgage.
Headnote:
Redemption of Mortgage - Land Dispute - J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 - Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the possession of land that was initially owned by Gaffar Najar and later mutated in the names of his heirs. The respondents claimed recovery of possession from the appellants, contending that the mortgage was invalid and obtained through undue influence, misrepresentation, or fraud. The appellants argued that the mortgage was validly executed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was effectively a suit for redemption, as the claim for possession on the ground of an invalid mortgage inherently included the claim for redemption. The court also held that the suit fell under the jurisdiction of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, and the authorities under the Act had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the redemption of the mortgage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was a suit for redemption and fell under the jurisdiction of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. Additionally, the court considered the validity of the mutation order and the applicability of the Act's provisions to the appellants' claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a suit claiming possession on the ground of an invalid mortgage inherently includes the claim for redemption, making it a suit for redemption. It also emphasized that the authorities under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 had exclusive jurisdiction to decide redemption of the mortgage, and the appellants were estopped from challenging the suit's nature and the jurisdiction of the Act's authorities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the authorities under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, emphasizing that the suit was effectively a suit for redemption and fell under the Act's jurisdiction. The court also noted that the mutation order would automatically perish if the Section 10 proceedings concluded in favor of the respondents.
2. In a suit instituted on May 11, 1970, the respondents claimed recovery of possession of the land in question from the appellants. In the suit, they contended that Mst. Azizi had limited interest in the land in question and, accordingly, had no right to mortgage the same. It was also contended that the ancestors of the appellants and the proforma respondents obtained the mortgage by exercising undue influence and by making misrepresentation of facts and / or by perpetrating fraud. In the suit, the appellants filed a written-statement whereby and under they contended that Mst. Azizi had right to create a mortgage and the mortgage in question was validly executed.
3. While the suit was pending for trial, in 1978 J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 came into force. The Court, before whom the suit was pending, forwarded the case to the Collector, Kulgam for taking steps under the said Act. The Collector in the year 1993 held that, since the validity of the mortgage deed was in question in the suit, the civil court alone can decide the same. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said decision before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, who upheld the said decision of the Collector. The respondents then filed a revision before the Special Tribunal, J&K, against the said order of the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. The Tribunal by its order dated August 1, 1996, allowed the revision and ordered as follows:
"The orders of the Collector and Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner are, therefore, modified to this extent that the petitioners have available forum of Collector under Section 10 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and so the whole record is sent down to the Collector concerned for disposal under law in terms of Section 10 of Agrarian Reforms Act."
4. No challenge was thrown to this order of the Tribunal and, accordingly, the same reached finality.
5. Thereupon, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kashmir, who by that time had been designated as Collector for Kashmir Province under the said Act, on November 4, 1997, held for the reasons recorded in an order that redemption of mortgage cannot be allowed in favour of the respondents. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J&K at Srinagar, who, by an order dated April 6, 1999, reversed the findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer Kashmir and held that the factum of mortgage is established and it is on that basis the appellants came into possession of the land, and, accordingly, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kashmir to dispose of the application for redemption of mortgage under Section 10 of the said Act. The order of the Financial Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J&K, Srinagar, dated April 6, 1999 was assailed by the appellants