Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parbhu Ram vs Shamo Devi on 18 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 2024:PHHC:038249
RSA-550-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2024
PARBHU RAM ..Appellant
Versus
SHAMO DEVI & ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate
for respondent No.1, 2 and 12 to 18.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing his suit for
pre-emption by way of mortgage with respect to the land measuring 1 bigha
14 biswas out of 3 bigha land.
2. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the
mortgage created on 13.08.1959 against payment of Rs.271.43/- was a
usufructuary mortgage. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court
that the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that the
period for redemption has lapsed.
3. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that in
view of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in
Singh Ram (deceased) through LRs Vs. Sheo Ram and others, AIR 2014
SC 344, the period for redemption of mortgage will not begin to run from
the date of mortgage and therefore, both the Courts have erred in dismissing
the plaintiff's suit.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038249
2024:PHHC:038249
RSA-550-1994 (O&M) -2-
4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents
submits that the appellant has died and no one has come forward to bring his
legal representative on record. He submits that the appellant has not left
behind any legal representative.
5. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
6. As per Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as substituted by the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory,
Chandigarh, where within the time limited by law no application is made
under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased plaintiff and
the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death, which shall
have same effect as if it is pronounced before the death took place and the
contract between the deceased and his pleader in that event shall continue to
subsist. This amendment was incorporated, with effect from 21.02.1992.
7. Keeping in view the undisputed facts, the appeal deserves to be
allowed.
8. The suit filed by the plaintiff shall stand decreed. He shall be
entitled to redeem the mortgage within the time prescribed under the
schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 18th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
