Law: Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, (II of 1913)

Section: 12

Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act (II of 1913)------ ------S. 12 --Aggrieved party had already instituted a suit for declaration of title which was pending on date of Collector's order of redemption -Suit should be regarded as one under S. 12. Where the ostensible mortgagor had already instituted a suit for declaration of title and the suit was pending when the Collector ordered redemption Held, that the suit should have been regarded, after the Collector's order directing redemption, as a suit under section 12 "to establish the plaintiff's rights in respect of the mortgage". If the policy of law is against the multiplicity of suits, to require the plaintiff to institute another suit specifically under section 12 would appear ridiculous, for if a suit almost identical with a suit which could have been filed under section 12 was already pending, an insistence on the language of section 12 would lead-to absurdity. Section 12, like any other provision of law, should be so interpreted as to make it capable of yielding a sensible meaning in all contexts. In substance, such a suit is under section 12 to establish the plaintiffs' rights in respect of the mortgage. The fact that it was instituted before the order came into existence makes no difference to the substance. Gangu v. Mahanraj Chand A I R 1934 Lah. 384 (F B) ref. JUDGMENT M. R. KAYANI, J.-This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs in a declaratory suit in which they have so far been unsuccessful. The history of the case, as given in the plaint and understood by learned counsel on both sides, is that Mukanda and his nephew Arura sold 90 Kanals 11 Marlas of land in village Paktal of Sialkot District by two registered deeds, dated the 28th of June 1897 and 11th of March, 1908, to Pir Bakhsh who already held it under a possessor y mortgage. It was perhaps for this reason that the entries in the land records remained unaltered. Pir Bakhsh had two sons, Shahab Din plaintiff and Imam Din. The other two plaintiffs, Shukar Din and Naza Din, are sons of Imam Din. Some time in 1926, Ali Muhammad, son of Mukanda, one of the original vendors, applied for the partition of his share, whether in this Court or in…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492