Holding

The mortgagor’s right of redemption is not barred by the dismissal under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act or the one‑year limitation, and a suit for redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is maintainable, giving the civil court jurisdiction to grant a decree of redemption.

Summary

The mortgagor, Kala Singh, executed three mortgages on agricultural land in favour of the appellants and later applied to the Collector under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 for redemption. After a compromise, the Collector ordered redemption under Section 11, but the mortgagor defaulted and the application was dismissed; the mortgagor then filed suits for redemption within one year under Section 12, which were dismissed after his death. The respondents (heirs) later filed separate redemption suits beyond the one‑year period, and the lower courts held the suits barred by the limitation provision of the Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 13 bars any further petition, whether the one‑year limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act applies, and whether a civil suit under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is maintainable. The Court held that the dismissal under the Act does not extinguish the mortgagor’s right of redemption, that the civil suit is permissible despite the Act’s bar, and that the limitation period does not preclude the suit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the respondents were not entitled to redemption.

Issues considered

Whether Section 13 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act bars any further petition for redemption after a dismissal under the Act.
Whether the mortgagor’s right of redemption is extinguished by the Collector’s order and the one‑year limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act.
Whether a suit for redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is maintainable despite the bar in Section 12 of the Act.
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a redemption suit after the statutory bar.

Legislation cited

Letter Patent Act
Limitation Act, 1908s. Article 14
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 61
Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913s. 11, s. 12, s. 13, s. 4, s. 6
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 60

Subjects

redemption of mortgagelimitation periodcivil suit jurisdictionRedemption of Mortgages (Punjab) ActTransfer of Property Actequitygood conscience

Judgment

A HARBANS SINGH ETC. -
v.
~--
GURAN DITTA SINGH ETC.

FEBRUARY 20, 1991
B [N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913-Sections 4, 12
and 13-Application for redemption dismissed-Whether mortgagor's__>...___
right of redemption barred-Whether suit for redemption under section
60-Transfer of Property Act maintainable and civil court has juris-
c
-
diction.

Kala Singh predecessor of the respondents executed three
mortgages hypothecating agricultural lands in favour of the appellants.
The mortgagor filed an application under Section 4 of the Redemption , .
of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913 and sought redemption of the r
D mortgages, by paying Rs~lO jn respect of each of the mortgage. The '
parties compromised regarding the amount payable and the Collector
passed the order on compromise under Section 11 of the Act on Feb.
3, 1964. The mortgagor having committed default in making the pay-
ment within the time allowed for the purpose, the petitions were dismis-
sed by the Collector. Thereupon the mortgagor filed three separate
E suits against each mortgagee for redemption within one year under ~,.l~
, Section 12 of the Act on June 12, 1964 and during the pendency of the
suits, he having died the suits were dismissed. The respondents after
obtaining mutation of their names in the revenue records, filed separate
suits for redemption of the mortgages but beyond one year as contemp-
lated under section 12 read with Art. 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The
F suits were dismissed by the trial court; which order was later affirmed
both by the first appellate Court as also by the High Court. On a further
appeal under the Letter Patent Act, the Division Bench of the High ~ ·
Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgnients and Decrees of
the courts below and granted decree of redemption holding that the
suits were not barred by limitation. The appellants have tlius filed these
G appeals after obtaining special leave. The appellants have reiterated
their contention amongst others that the suits were barred by limitation
and further the High Court was not right in applying the provisions of
Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. y .

Dismissing the appeals this Court,
H

(514
HARBANS v. G.D. SINGH 615

_~ HELD: Section 13 creates a bar to make any further petition
A
, under the Act by the mortgagor or his successor in interest. A reading
of Section 12 clearly postulates that the aggrieved party, be it
mortgagor or mortgagee, against an order made under ss. 6 to 11 is
empowered to institute a suit to establish his right in respect of the
mortgage. Subject to the result of the suit, the order passed by the
Collector shall be conclusive. Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 B
which is equivalent to Article 100 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes
___.l- Iimitation of one year from the date of the decision or the order of the
officer of the Government in his official capacity. Article 61 of the
present Limitation Act provides 30 years for redemption and recovery of
the possession of the hypotheca. The limitation of 30 years runs from
~· the date when the right to redemption or possession accrues. Articles
105, 134 and 145 of the old Limitation Act would apply to the present c
litigation and the limitation is 60 years. [619A-C]

The creation of mortgage is an act intervivos and not a statutory
or common law right. The Act accords summary remedy and the
default of compliance entails with dismissal of the application and D
section 13 prohibits second application for the self same relief. The
remedy of civil suit for redemption available at common law, subject
to limitation, is not taken away. Civil suit is not a declaratory suit, but
, one to redeem the mortgage and to recover possession of mortgage
-_..1.... property. [621B-C]

E
ID the instant case, app_lying the principle of justice, Equity and
Good conscience though section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, per
se, did not apply, the principles in section 60 would apply. [622G]

Though the application for redemption was dismissed under
section 11 of the Act and became conclusive under section 12, the F
_ - -f--- mortgagor's right to redemption is not barred. A suit for redemp-
tion under section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act will be main-
tainable and civil court has jurisdiction to grant the decree of
redemption. [622G]
I

The suits for redemption are admittedly within limitation either G
under· the old Limitation or under the new Limitation Act. The bar of
~section 12 of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to
entertain and grant decree of redemption. [623B]

Raghunath Singh & Ors. v. Mt. Hansraj Kanwar and Ors. A.I.R.
1934 P.C. 205; Tul.si Dass@Nirmal Das and Ors. v~ Dia/a Ram AIR 1943 H
616 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

A Lah. 176; Sheo Lal & Ors. v. Sultan and Ors. [1970] 2 SCR 405; ~
Mussammat Bhagwan Devi v. Mussammat Bunyadi Khanum [1902]
Punjab Record 348; Safdar Ali v. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din & Ors., [1915]
(1) Punjab Record 406; Mian Nizam & Din Mohammad v. Lala
Ramsukh Das, AIR 1938 Lah. 286; Milkha Singh v. Mst. Shankari &
Ors., AIR (34) Lahore 1; Ms. Ram Gopal Dula Singh v. Sardar Gurbux
B Singh Jiwan Singh and Ors., AIR 1955 Punjab 215; Atma Singh & Gian
Singh v. Mangal Singh and Ors., ILR 1957 Jan.-June (Vol. 10) 79;
Ganeshi Lal v. Jyoti Pershad, [1953] SCC 243; Suryanarayan v. Sri-~
ramulu, [1913] (25) M L.J.P.16;-Referred to.

Gangu & Ors. v. Maharaj Das & Ors., ILR 15 Lahore 380; Kaura v.
Ram Chand, [1925] ILR 6, Lah. 206-Distinguished.
c
Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. Jamna Ram and Ors., [1928] 114 I.C. 447-Not
approved. ·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 122-
D 24of1975.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 9.4.1974 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 213, 214 and 215of1973.

S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Aman Vachher, for the Appellants. ~~
E
K.C. Dua for the Resppndents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
0
K. RAMASWAMY, J. The appellants are mortgagees. The
F respondents are the heirs of Kala Singh, the mortgagor. Kala Singh
exe~uted three mortgages in favour of the appellants Resham Singh, A
Jaswant Singh and Harbans Singh on September 17, 1962, June 17,
1961 and M~y 31, 1962 respectively hypothecating the agricultural
lands of 16 kanals 16 marlas in each of the first two mortgages and 16
kanals in the third mortgage. The mortgagor filed an application under
G Sec. 4 of the redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 2 of 1913, for
short 'the Act'. He deposited a sum of Rs.10 in each mortgage and
sought redemption of the mortgages. Ultimately the parties compro- ~
mised and the mortgagor agreed to pay the balance of Rs.340 to each <
mortgagee within a month from May 1, 1964. The Collector passed the
order on compromise under s.11 thereof on February 3, 1964. He
H committed default in the payment thereof. The petitions were dismis-
HARBANS v. G.D. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.] 617

sed. He filed separate suits against each mortgagee for redemption
~within one year under Sec. 12 of the Act on June 12, 1964. Pending
suits he died. Thereafter the suits were dismissed. After obtaining
mutation of their names in the revenue records the respondents filed
separate suitsfor redemption of the mortgages, but beyond one year as
contemplated under Sec. 12 read with Art. 14 of the Limitation Act,
1903. The suits were dismissed by the Trial Court and were confirmed B
by the First Appellate Court and by the High Court in Second Appe-
_.,.i_ als. But the Division Bench under Clause (10) of the Letter of Patent
allowed the appeals and set aside the Judgments and Decrees of the
·, courts below and granted decree of redemption in terms of the prayer
by Judgment dated April 9, 1974. Assailing the legality thereof the

- ~- ·appeals have been filed after obtaining leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. Since common questions of facts and law arise for deci-
sion in these appeals, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
c

'---....( The only question that was argued before the High Court and
reiterated in this Court is whether the suits are barred by limitation.
The contention of Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the appella~ts is D
that the order passed by the Collector under Sec. 12 of the Act is
conclusive between the parties unless the suits are laid under Art. 14 of
the LimitatiQn Act within one year from the date of the Order. Admit-
tedly, the present suits have been filed beyond such limitation of one.
_j.. year. The High Court committed a grave error of law in applying the
· provisions of Sec. 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and the ratio of E
the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh & Ors. v. Mt. Hansraj Kanwar
& Ors.,_~.l.R. 1934 P.C 205. He contends that the Act provides a.
right and remedy to the mortgagor and mortgagees. Section 12 of the
Act makes the order conclusive and binding and Sec. 13 bars second
application in that regard unless the suit is filed within one year from
the date of the order. It is not open to the Civil Court to go behind the p
;- order of the Collector and enlarge the limitation provided under Art.
'14 of the Limitation Act. All the provisions of Transfer of Property
Act were not applicable to State of Punjab. Certain Provisions relating
to Sale-deeds and gifts were made applicable to the Sta.te of Pui:ti_ab
with effect from April 1, 1955 and to the area c!_)mprised in the erstwhile
Pepsu State, w.e.f. May 15, 1957. As on the date when the suits were G
laid, s. 60 of Transfer of Property Act did not apply to Punjab and so
the ratio in Raghunath Singh's case (supra) is inapplicable. The High
~Court committed manifest error in applying s. 60. he cited decisions of
Lahore High Court in support of the contention that the suit shall be
laid within one year which we would advert to at a later stage. Shri
Dua, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the High "' H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . · [1991] 1 S.C.R.

Court is justified in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation and ._;.-__
A
the ratio of the decision cited.by the appellants cannot be applied. l

The Act is a beneficial legislation giving right to the mortgagors
to seek redemption and restoration. of possession of the hypotheca in
summary proceedings before the revenue courts. The Act applies only
B to mortgage of land where the principal money secured under the
mortgage does not exceed Rs. 5,000 and the hypotheca does not
exceed 50 acres of land. Section 4 gives right to the mortgagor and~
other persons entitled to sue for redemption at any time after the
principal money becomes payable and before the suit for redemption is
barred, by presenting a petition to the Collector for a direction
i.e. mortgage be redeemed and erstwhile mortgages shall put the 7'v
c mortgagor in possession of the hypotheca, after following the proce-
dure in that behalf. Secs. 5 to ll deal with the procedure. Under s. ll if
the Collector, on an enquiry, forms an opinion that the sum is rightly
due under the mortgage, he shall, unless he dismisses the petition 'r
under Sec. 10, make an order under Sec.6. If the sum is found larger
D than the sum deposited, the mortgagor shall deposit the amount with
any further sum that may be due on account of interest upto date of the
deposit; on making deposit within the period or extended period not
exceeding 30 days, thereafter, the Collector shall make an order under

E
Sec.6 thereto. On committing default by the Mortgagor, the Collector
shall dismiss the petition. Section 6 provides the relief of redemption;
of i:estoration of po~session to the mortgagor; delivery of the mort-
*
gage. deed and payment of the mortgage money to the mortgagee.
Section 12, which is material for the purpose of this case, reads thus:

(1) "Saving of suits to establish rights-Any party aggrived
-
by an order II1ade under Section 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this
F Act may institute a suit to establish his right in respect of
the mortgage, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, -A---
the order shall be conclusive.

(2) Setting aside ex-parte orders or orders of dismissal-
Notwithstanding anything in this section a mortgagee
G against whom an ex-parte order under section 7 has been
made or a petitioner, whose petiton has been dismissed in
default under section 6 may apply to the Collector to have ~
such order of dismissal set aside, and Collector may in his -
discretion set aside such order of dismissal, on such terms
as to costs or otherwise as he may deem fit; provided that
H the order of dismissal shall not be set aside unless notice of
- .
HARBANS v. G.D. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.] 619

the application has been served on the opposite party."
A
Section 13 creates a bar to make any further petition under the
Act by the mortgagor or his successor in interest. A reading of Sec. 12
clearly postulates that the aggrieved party, be it mortgagor or
mortgagee, against an order made under ss. 6 to 11 is empowered to
institute a suit to establish his right in respect of the mortgage, subject
to the result of the suit the order passed by the Collector shall be
conclusive. Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which is equivalent .
to Art. 100 of the Limitation Act 1963, prescribes limitation of one
year from the date of the decision or the order of the officer of the
Government in his official capacity. Article 61 of the present Limita-
tion Act provides 30 years for redemption and recovery of the posses-
sion of the hypotheca. The limitation of 30 years runs from the date c
when the right to redemption or possession accrues. Articles 10.5, 134,
and 145 of the Old Limitation Act would apply to the present litigation
and the limitation is 60 years. In Tutsi Dass@ Nirmal Das & Ors. v.
Diala Ram, (2) AIR 1943 Lah. 176 a Full Bench for which Tek Chand,
J. wrote the leading judgment held at page 189 thus:

''The order of the Collector does not affect the rights of the
parties in any way; it is conclusive to this extent only that
the petition for summary redemption has been dismissed
and no other petition under the Act would lie. No suit
under s. 12 being necessary or competent, there was no bar E
. to. the mortgagor suing for redemption in the civiil Courts
within the period allowed by law in ordinary cburse. It
must, therefore, be held that the mortgagor's suit in A.LR.
1929 Lah. 513 was rightly decreed and that the -contrary
conclusion reached by the Single Bench in A.LR. 1927
Lah. 461 and re-affirmed by the Division Bench in A.l.R. F
1938 Lah. 638 that it is the form of the order of the Col-
lector which has to be seen and not the substance of it, is
erroneous.

This view was approved by this Court in Sheo Lal & Ors. v.
Sultan & Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 405 by a Bench of three Judges. The facts G
were that the Collector did not decide the dispute on merits, but
~I rejected the application filed under Sec. 4 of the Act holding that the
,
application raised complicated question of facts and law and thereby
he declined to exercise summary jurisdiction under the Act. On
institution of the suit the plea of limitation under Art. 14 of Old
Limitation Act was raised which was upheld by the Trial Court, but on H
~··

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

appeal the decree of redemption was granted and was confirmed by ~~- ;
A the High Court in Second Appeal. The same contention was reiterated l
before this Court. In that context Shah, J. as he then was, speaking for
1
the court, held that it is not the form of the order of dismissal but its
substance will determine the application of the period of limitation
prescribed by Art. 14 of the Limitation Act. An order 're1egating the
B mortgagor to a civil suit for obtaining an order of redemption, even if
become~ final, does not bar a s~~t for redemption for it raises no cloud i.
on the title of the mortgagor ansmg out of the mortgage. Such an order ~.
is not one which is ,required to be set aside. An order required to be set ·.
aside is one which the officer making it has jurisdiction to make it and
has the effect of barring the claim for relief unless it is set aside.
c It is clear that an order passed by the Collector under ss. 6 to 11
is only conclusive for what was decided therein and if the adjudication
·made by the Collector in summary proceedings are sought to be '---~ .
reopened, certainly, unless the order is got over, either by the [ . ~. ·
mortgagor or by the mortgagee, or any person claiming right, title or
D i'nterest through them being an aggrieved person within the meaning of
Sec. 12, the order of the Collector binds the parties or the persons
claiming right, title or interest from the parties. Take for instance,
there is a dispute as in the present case about the mortgage money
before the Collector. Kala Singh disputed the money secured of
hypothecation but had compromised and agreed to pay the amount k
E mentioned in the mortgage bond, namely, Rs.850-Rs. io in each of the
mortgages disputed but in the suit filed within one year he reiterated
his original stand. Had the same stand been taken by the respondents
disputing the mortgage money, certainly it would not be open to the
respondents as successor in interest of the mortgagor to contend that
-
the money advanced under the mortgage was not Rs.850, but some-
thing less. That is not the case in the present suit. They agreed to pay
Rs.850 as decided by the Collector and sought redemption in the civif _.,.....4-
suit. Thereby they are not seeking to set aside the order of the Collec-
tor, but they are seeking redemption of the mortgage. Take another
instance where the mortgagor disputed the execution or validity of the
mortgage, bond itself and the finding was recorded against the
G mortgagee, i.e. the mortgage bond was not either executed or is void
for being vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence, etc. The
mortgagor successfully avoided the mortgage by a specific order pas- y ...
sed by the Collector under the relevent provisions of the Act. If no suit
was filed within a period of one year, the findings of the Collector
become conclusive between the mortgagee and the mortgagor ancl it is'
H not open t;:) assail the order of the Collector after one year in a suit of
HARBANS v. G.D. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.] 6Zl

foreclosure or sale by the mortgagee. Therefore, what was prohibited
by Sec. 12 is only the substance of the order and not the form. A

Once a mortgage always a mortgage and gets extinguished by
payment of mortgage money by the mortgagor or decree of redemp-
tion is passed and satisfied. The creation of mortgage is an act
intervivos and not a statutory or common law right. The Act accords B
summary remedy and the default of compliance entails with dismissal
of the application and s. 13 prohibits second application for the self
same relief. The remedy of civil suit for redemption available at
common law, subject to limitation, is not taken away. Civil suit is not a
declaratory suit, but one to redeem the mortgage and to recover
possession of mortgaged property.
c
The question then is whether the respondents are entitled to
redemption of the mortgage. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 gives right to redemption of the mortgage by instituting a
suit for redemption of the mortgage property. But as seen, at the
relevant time section 6D was not made applicable to Punjab. In D
Mussammat Bhagwan Devi v. Mussammat Bunyadi Khanum, [1902]
Punjab Record 348 the Division Bench held that although the Transfer
of Property Act and the Indian Easement Act are not in force in
Punjab, the Punjab Courts when deciding cases in which principles of
J.. law dealt with by the provisions of those Acts are involved, may adopt
those provisions as embodying law applicable t~ the case especially E .
when the law enunciated therein coincides with the principles of
equity, good conscience and justice for which there is no statutory law
applicable to the Punjab. In that it was held that the mortgagor in
possession had no authority, without the consent of the mortgagee, to
do an act which was likely to p10ve destructive or permanently injuri-
ous to the property mortgaged. In SafdarAlj. v. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din p
& Ors., [1915] 1 Punjab Record 406 the Full Bench was to consider
whether Doctrine of Clogging would apply when the Transfer of
Property Act was not made applicable to Punjab. The Full Bench held
that though the Doctrine of Clogging, in terms does not apply in
Punjab, when there is no statutory prohibition, governing the matter
be restricted to cases where something unconscionable or oppressive G
in the bargain calls for redress. In terms the Full Bench applied the
Principles in the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act consistent
with the Doctrine of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. In Mian
Nizam & Din Mohammad v. Lala Ram Sukh Das, AIR 1938 Lahore
286 the right of prior mortgagee purchasing property mortgaged to him
be deemed to keep alive for his benefit as against subsequent mort- H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

gagee. It was held that the principles contained ins. 101 of Transfer of ..__
A Property Act would be applicable and applied. In Milkha Singh v. Mst.
Shankari & Ors., AIR (34) Lahore 1 a Full Bench of five Judges applied
the Doctrine of Part Performance under s. 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act as a defence. It was further held that s. 53A is based on
equitable principles which were previously applicable to whole of
B fodia, though the Transfer of Property Act per se was not applied to
Punjab. In Mis Ram Gopal Dula Singh v. Sardar Gurbux Singh Jiwan
·Singh & Ors., AIR 1955 Punjab 215 Kapur, J., as he then was speak-
ing for the Division Bench, held that though s. 6 of the Transfer of
Property Act is not applicable to Punjab, the right to expectancy may
not be transferred. It was further held that in Punjab and Lahore there ?
I
is no disagreement as to Principles of Transfer of Property Act being
C applicable to Punjab because they are based on Justice, Equity and '
Good-conscience. This view was again reiterated in Atma Singh &
Gian Sungh v. Mangal Singh & Ors., I.L.R. 1957 Jan. -June (Vol.10)
79 and applied ss. 58, 92 and 100, Doctrine of Subrogation, but exclu-
ded the applicability of the technical rules. This Court ill Ganeshi Lal
D v. Jyoti Pershad, [1953] SCC 243 _held that though the Transfer of
Property Ad 1882 does not apply to Punjab, the principle of equity,
justice and good conscience_ would apply to Punjab. If one of the
several mortgagors redeems the entire mortgage by paying a sum less
than the full amount due under the mortgage, he is entitled to receive
from his co-mortgagors only their proportionate shares on the amount
·E actually paid by h_im. He is not entitled to claim their proportionate
shares on the amount which was due to the mortagee under terms of
the mortgage on the date of redemption. The same prindple laid down
in_ Suryanarayan v. SYirarriulu, [1913] 25 M.L.J. p. 16 was referred to wltfi
approval in Ganeshi Lal's case. Though in Ganeshi Lal's case. the
entire claim under the suit for contribution was not decreed, ~the provi-
F sions of Transfer of Property Act were applied, on the Principles of
equity, justice and good conscience and granted decree pro rata.

We hold that applying the principle of Justice, Equity and Good
-
Conscience though s. 60 of the Transfer of Property Act per se did not
apply, the principles ins. 60 would apply. Though the application for
G redemption was dismissed under s.11 of the Act and became conclu-
sive under s.12 the mortgagor's right to redemption is not barred. A
suit for redemption .@der s. 60 of Transfer of Property Act will be
maintainable and civil court has jurisdiction to grant -the decree of
redemption.

H In Ga'!_g_u & Ors. v. Maharaj pas & Ors., I.L.R. 15 Lah'?re 380 a
- HARBANS v. G.D. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.)

Ful! bench followin_g Kaura v. Ram Chand~ [1925] I.L.R. 6 Lah. 206 A
623

held that unless the order of the Collector be challenged within one
year the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this case
the right to redemption of mortgage itself was barred by limitation.
Therefore, the ratio does not apply. Though the ratio in Bhagat Ram
& Ors. v. Jamna Ram & Ors., [1928] 114 l.C. 447 is in favour of the B
appellants, in our view the ratio therein is not good law. Thus we hold
that the suits for redemption are admittedly within limitation either
under the Old Limitation or under the new Limitation Act. The bar of
Sec. 12 of the Act does not oust the juriscfa:tion, of'the civil Court to
€?ntertain and grant decree of redemption.

The appeals are aecordingiy dismissed, but jn the circumstances C
parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.

Appeals dismissed.