MUHAMMAD ALI vs SAKINA BIBI and others
Muhammad Ali seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-2-1987, which dismissed his civil revision against the concurrent findings of the lower courts in favour of the respondents. The dispute originates from a mortgage created in 1891, where the original mortgagee transferred rights to the respondents' predecessor. The petitioner's second application for redemption before the Collector was initially decreed in 1968, prompting the respondents to file a successful declaratory suit that the order was void, as they had become owners. The lower courts and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenges. The core legal question concerns whether the creation of a sub-mortgage by a mortgagee in favour of another constitutes an acknowledgement under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that this raises a question of public importance requiring consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal, directing status quo to be maintained in the interim.
- Whether the creation of a sub-mortgage by a mortgagee in favour of another mortgagee constitutes an acknowledgement within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act?
- Is a second application for redemption maintainable after the dismissal of the first application by the Collector?
- Whether an order of the Collector allowing redemption subsequent to a dismissal is void when the mortgagees have acquired ownership rights over time?
- Section 19, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Muhammad Ali petitioner peeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-2-1987, whereby his civil revision against the order of the Additional District Judge was dismissed.
2. ' Boota the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner mortgaged the land in dispute in favour of Beli Ram vide registered mortgage deed 16-2-1891. Beli Ram transferred his mortgagee rights to Karam Din predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents at the time pre-partition. The defendant/petitioner filed application for redemption of the mortgage before the Collector who vide his order dated 5-2-1953 dismissed the application. Another application without mentioning the first one was filed by the petitioner which was decreed by the Collector on 18-9-1968. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that the subsequent order of the Collector was void as they had become the owners of the suit land since a very long time. The suit of the respondents was decreed by the Civil Judge Narowal on 16-11-1985. Appeal filed by the petitioner against this order failed on 18-6-1986 and thereafter his revision petition before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and having perused the reasoning of the High Court and the trial Court we consider it a fit case for grant of leave, inter alia, to examine; whether, the question of creation of a sub-mortgage by mortgagee in favour of another mortgagee, constituted an acknowledgement within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act, is a question of public importance and needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted.
4. The delay is condoned.
5. ' Security Rs,5,000.
6. ' Appeal shall be ready on the present record with direction to parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo in meanwhile.