1

CORRECTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1077-1078 OF 2012

DARSHNA KUMARI @ DARSHAN KAUR & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SOHAN SINGH & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

C.A. NOS.1045-1046/2012

O R D E R

The Civil Appeal Nos.1077-1078/2012 preferred by the

plaintiffs are directed against the judgment and decree passed

by the High Court dated 19.12.2007 whereby the High Court

dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs – appellants seeking

declaration of ownership on the ground that the mortgage has not

been redeemed within a period of 20 years in terms of the decree

confirmed by the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated

26.02.1947.

2.

The Civil Appeal Nos.1045-1046/2012 are preferred by the

State claiming that the mortgagors were the Muslims who migrated

to Pakistan and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950¹, the land came to

be vested with the Government. Therefore, the State would be the

1 For short, the ‘1950 Act’

Digitally signed by

SWETA BALODI

Date: 2022.05.21

12:17:59 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

mortgagors and is thus entitled to seek redemption in terms of

the Judgment of this Court reported as ‘Singh Ram (Dead) Through

Legal Representatives Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.’².

3.

The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that

one Puran Ditta and Sondhi executed three mortgage deeds

mortgaging 19 kanals in favour of Shershah on 08.08.1885; 68

kanals in favour of Jai Ram on 22.08.1886 and 21 kanals 19

marlas in favour of Dhani Ram in the year 1887-1888. Kripa Ram,

purchased the mortgage rights and came in possession of the

mortgage property as mortgagee whereas Hakam Khan purchased the

propriety rights of the lands mortgaged. Hakam Khan received an

amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- under subsequent mortgage

deeds executed in favour of Kripa Ram on 21.12.1916 and

01.02.1921.

4.

Hakam Khan died survived by his three sons – Abdul Satar,

Gauna Khan and Abdul Gafoor. The sons of Hakam Khan filed an

application under the provisions of the Punjab Redemption of

Mortgages Act, 1913³, for extinguishment of the mortgaged

rights. The Special Collector, Amritsar allowed the said

application on 13.12.1944. Such order of redemption was

challenged in a Civil suit by Kripa Ram claiming that he has a

right to remain in possession of land for 20 years from

30.12.1944 or till the payment of Rs.2,500/-.

5.

It may be stated that the order of the Collector for

2 (2014) 9 SCC 185

3 For short, the ‘1913 Act’

3

redemption of mortgage is final subject to the suit under

Section 13 of the 1913 Act. Section 13 reads thus:

“13. Any party aggrieved by an order made under section 6,

7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this Act may institute a suit to

establish his rights in respect of the mortgage, but subject

to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be

conclusive.

Norwithstanding anything in this section a mortgagee against

whom an ex-parte order under section 7 has been made or a

petitioner, whose petition has been dismissed in default

under section 6 may apply to the Collector to have such order

or dismissal set aside, such order or dismissal on such terms

as to costs or otherwise as he may deem fit; provided that

the order or dismissal shall not be set aside unless notice

of the application has bene served on the opposite party.”

6.

The reference to the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged

Lands Act, 1938⁴ by the learned trial court and by the High

Court seems to be mistake as an order passed under the 1913 Act

alone can be disputed before the civil court whereas the order

passed by the Collector under the 1938 Act is final. The 1938

Act is applicable only to the mortgage created before

08.06.1901, i.e., the