PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Khosla and S.M.Soni JJ.
Birbal
Versus
Harlal Sadasukh
Second Appeal No. 548 of 1952,
Decided On : MAY 25, 1953
ABATEMENT - SETTING ASIDE - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF LAND - DEATH OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WITHIN TIME - SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOWN - ABATEMENT SET ASIDE - APPEAL - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ALLOWED TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD - NO PREJUDICE CAUSED - DECREE AGAINST DEAD PERSON NOT A NULLITY - REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGES ACT - COLLECTOR'S ORDER REVIEWING PREVIOUS ORDER - WITHOUT JURISDICTION - INVALID.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land and a declaration that an order passed by the Collector was invalid. The land was mortgaged to defendants 1 to 3 and the father of defendants 4 and 5. Plaintiff executed a lease deed in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The lease was a perpetual one and the deed was registered. Plaintiff made an application to the Collector for the redemption of this land under the Redemption of Mortgages Act. While this application was pending before the Collector an Ordinance was passed on 25-7-1949 and this Ordinance was later succeeded by Act 36 of 1949 whereby all leases effected by evacuees were to be considered as having terminated with effect from 25-7-1949. The Collector passed an order of redemption in favor of the plaintiff on 5-10-1949. The Custodian made an application to the Collector for the review of his previous order and the Act whereby the losses made by evacuee were terminated was relied upon by the Custodian. The Collector reviewed his previous order and on 1-4-1950 set aside the order of redemption passed by him. Plaintiff filed the present suit on 23-11-1950 for a declaration that the order of the Collector reviewing the previous order was invalid as it was not warranted by law and he also prayed for possession of the property which had been ordered to be redeemed by him. Surja one of the defendants died on 28-7-1951 and no attempt was made by the plaintiff to bring his legal representatives on record. The decree followed on 29-12-1951. An appeal was filed by the mortgagee-defendants including the legal representatives of Surja. The Custodian filed a separate appeal. Plaintiff made an application to bring the legal representatives of Surja, on record end also prayed that the abatement of the suit, if any, be set aside. The District Judge set aside the abatement, allowed the legal representatives of Surja to be brought on record, and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits after coming to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to remit the case to the lower Court for further proceedings from the stage at which Surjas death had taken place.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge was right in allowing the legal representatives of Surja to be brought on record. The order of the Collector dated 1-4-1950 whereby he reviewed his previous order is without jurisdiction and invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the abatement of the suit should be set aside? 2. Whether the order of the Collector reviewing his previous order was invalid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Abatement can be set aside even after the statutory period of 90 days has expired. Ignorance of the death of a party is a very good ground for not moving the Court to bring his legal representatives on record. 2. The Collector has not been given any power to review his order. The only way in which these orders can be avoided is by having recourse to the provisions of Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Khosla, J.
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by Hartal plaintiff-respondent for the possession of 227 Bighas 11 Biswas of land. The plaintiff also sought a declaration to the effect that an order passed by the Collector on 1-4-1950 was invalid. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly as follows.
2. Ghayas-ud-Din and Siraj-ud-Din, two Muslims, were originally owners of the land in dispute. They mortgaged this land with possession to defendants 1 to 3 and the father of defendants 4 and 5 on 25-5-1945 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Possession was made over to the mortgagees. A little later, on 21-2-1946, the owners executed a lease deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The lease was a perpetual one and the deed was registered. Out of the total consideration Rs. 5,000/- were paid by the plaintiff in cash and the remaining Rs. 6,000/- were left in deposit for payment to the previous mortgagees, namely defendants 1 to 5. The lease deed gave the plaintiff the right to redeem the propsrty from the mortgagees. In order to give effect to this term the plaintiff made an application to the Collector on 22-4-1949 for the redemption of this land under the Redemption of Mortgages Act. The owners Ghayas-ud-Din and Siraj-ud-Din had, in the meantime, left India on the partition of the country and the property vested in the Custodian as evacuee property. While this application of the plaintiff was pending before the Collector an Ordinance was passed on 25-7-1949 and this Ordinance was later succeeded by Act 36 of 1949 whereby all leases effected by evacuees were to be considered as having terminated with effect from 25-7-1949. Either in ignorance of this provision of the law or for some other reason the Collector passed an order of redemption in favour of the plaintiff on 5-10-1949. It is clear that the legal position was never placed before the Collector. The Custodian, however, made an application to the Collector for the review of his previous order and the Act whereby the losses made by evacuee were terminated was relied upon by the Custodian. The Collector with the permission of his superior reviewed his previous order and on 1-4-1950 set aside the order of redemption passed by him. The Collector apparently acted under the provisions of the Punjab Land Tenancy Act which gives power to the Collector to review his orders in certain conditions.
The mortgagees had in the meantime filed a suit under Section 13 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act. This suit was dismissed on 2-6-1950. Therefore at this stage the net result was that the remedy which the aggrieved party was entitled to pursue under law had failed and so the order of redemption stood good as far as the defendants were concerned. The Collector had, however, reviewed his order at the instance of the Custodian and the plaintiff was held not entitled to redeem the land. The plaintiff then filed the present suit on 23-11-1950 for a declaration that the order of the Collector reviewing the previous order was invalid as it was not warranted by law and he also prayed for possession of the property which had been ordered to be redeemed by him. This suit was decreed on 29-12-1951 but a further complication had in the meantime arisen. While the suit was pending, Surja one of the defendants died on 28-7-1951 and no attempt was made by the plaintiff to bring his legal representatives on record.
The decree followed on 29-12-1951 as I have already mentioned above and then an appeal was filed by the mortgagee-defendants including the legal representatives of Surja, namely, his sons and widow. This appeal was filed on 29-1-1952, and one of the grounds taken up was that the decree was a nullity inasmuch as it had been passed against a dead person. The Custodian filed a separate appeal. This appeal was filed on 6-2-1952. The plaintiff now made an application to bring the legal representatives of Surja, on record end also prayed that the abatement of th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.