1983 (4) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....state left by Raja Ram, mortgagee, had been sanctioned in their favour. Mst. Ram Kaur, the mortgagor, is also dead and Mst. Chhoto is her heir. The mutation in respect of her estate has been sanctioned in her favour. The limitation for redemption had expired and as such, they had become the owners of the property, in dispute. The limitation for redemption was stated to be 60 years from the date of the mortgage. Hence the suit for the declaration to the effect that they were not owners of the suit property. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that the right of redemption still existed. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had not become the owners of the suit land by prescription, as alleged. As a result, their suit was dismissed.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he mortgage to be redeemed and the petitioners-mortgagors to be put into possession. The mortgage money was found to be Rs. 215/- . Admittedly, no suit challenging the said order of the Collector, as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act, was filed and, thus, the said order became conclusive as provided therein. It has been further alleged in the said civil miscellaneous application that in pursuance of the said order of the Collector, the applicants also got possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs-appellants and that they were now in possession of the same. Under these circumstances, it was prayed that in view of the subsequent events, the plaintiffs' appeal was liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. Face....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase, as held in Miss Bedlan's case (AIR 1975 Raj 153)(supra). 9. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the said transfer was hit by the principle of lis pendens is wholly untenable in view of facts and circumstances of this case. Section 52 of the T. P. Act, reads-- "During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any oth....