FALAK SHER and others vs KHUDA BAKHSH and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, allowing the redemption of mortgaged land. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents' application for redemption of a mortgage, originally created via a mutation attested on August 29, 1923, was time-barred. The Collector and the Additional Commissioner had initially rejected the application on the grounds of limitation. However, the Board of Revenue reversed these findings, and the High Court affirmed this reversal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed the lower appellate authority's conclusion that the application for redemption of the mortgage was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law. By dismissing the petition, the Court effectively upheld the right of the mortgagor to seek redemption, confirming that the statutory limitation period had not expired, thereby validating the procedural correctness of the Board of Revenue's decision in favor of the respondents.
- Is an application for redemption of a mortgage filed after several decades necessarily barred by limitation?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to reverse a finding on limitation made by a Collector in a redemption matter?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-6-1988.
2. The respondents' predecessor-in-interest had mortgaged certain lands through mutation attested on 29-8-1923 at the hands of the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners. On 21-11-1983 the respondents moved an application before the Collector, Shahpur, for redemption of the mortgage. This application was rejected on 28-4-1984 holding that the same was barred by time.
The appeal of the respondents was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 31-10-1984. On being approached, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, accepted the revision petition of the respondents and allowed the redemption. The writ petition of the petitioners has also been dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the orders of the Board of Revenue and that of the learned Single Judge and are of the view that the orders impugned before us are unexceptionable in that it has rightly been held that the application for redemption was in time.
4. Finding no force the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.