Commencement of Limitation Period for Redemption of Mortgaged Property – Supreme Court Ruling.
 |
رھن دی ھوئی پراپرٹی کو چھڑوانے کے لیے ساٹھ سال تک دعوئ کیا جا سکتا ھیے اور یہ مدت چھڑوانے والی تاریخ سے شروع ھو گی نہ کہ معاھدہ شروع ھونے والی تاریخ سے۔ |
رہن دی ہوئی پراپرٹی کو چھڑوانے کی مدتِ دعوٰی – سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
مقدمے کا پس منظر
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے 10 مارچ 2023 کو دو سول پٹیشنز میں رہن دی گئی پراپرٹی کو چھڑوانے کے لیے قانونی حد کی مدت پر فیصلہ دیا۔ اس کیس میں یہ سوال اٹھا کہ چھڑوانے کے لیے ساٹھ سال کی مدت رہن کے معاہدے کی تاریخ سے شروع ہوگی یا رہن کی مدت ختم ہونے کی تاریخ سے۔
درخواست گزار کا موقف
خان افسر، درخواست گزار، نے دلائل دیے کہ رہن کی حد کی مدت 21 جولائی 1935 سے شروع ہونی چاہیے، یعنی رہن کے معاہدے کی تاریخ سے۔
نچلی عدالتوں اور ریونیو حکام کا موقف
نچلی عدالتوں اور ریونیو حکام نے فیصلہ دیا کہ ساٹھ سال کی مدت صرف رہن کی مدت ختم ہونے کے بعد شروع ہوتی ہے، نہ کہ معاہدے کی تاریخ سے۔
قانونی بنیاد
عدالت نے آرٹیکل 148 کے تحت محدود مدت کی وضاحت کی کہ رہن کو چھڑوانے یا اس کی ملکیت واپس لینے کا حق اُس وقت سے پیدا ہوتا ہے جب رہن کی شرائط کے مطابق مالک قانوناً پراپرٹی واپس لے سکتا ہے۔
مختلف حالات میں مدت کا آغاز
عدالت نے بیان کیا کہ:
اگر معاہدے میں ایک مخصوص تاریخ مقرر کی گئی ہو تو مدت اسی تاریخ سے شروع ہوگی۔
اگر معاہدہ ایک مقررہ مدت کے لیے ہو لیکن تاریخ مخصوص نہ ہو تو مدت معاہدے کی مقررہ مدت ختم ہونے کے بعد شروع ہوگی۔
اگر نہ تاریخ مقرر ہو نہ مدت تو مدت معاہدے کی تاریخ سے شروع ہوگی۔
کیس کی حقیقت
اس کیس میں، رہن 21 جولائی 1935 کو بیس سال کی مدت کے لیے قائم کیا گیا تھا۔ بیس سال کی مدت 21 جولائی 1955 کو ختم ہوئی اور اس کے بعد ساٹھ سال کی حد کی مدت شروع ہوئی، یعنی 21 جولائی 2015 تک۔ درخواست 21 جون 2010 کو دائر کی گئی جو مدتِ قانونی کے اندر تھی۔
عدالت کا فیصلہ
عدالت نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے کہا کہ رہن کی مدت ختم ہونے کے بعد ہی ساٹھ سال کی قانونی مدت شروع ہوتی ہے اور درخواست گزار کی دلیل کہ مدت معاہدہ کی تاریخ سے شروع ہونی چاہیے درست نہیں تھی۔ اس لیے دونوں سول پٹیشنز خارج کر دی گئیں اور درخواستیں مسترد ہوئیں۔
نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ رہن سے متعلقہ تنازعات میں قانونی مدت کے آغاز کی وضاحت فراہم کرتا ہے اور رہن دار اور مالکان کے لیے رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے۔
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Civil Petitions No.3573 and 3574 of 2020
[Against the judgment dated 14.09.2020, passed by the
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in Civil Revision
No.105-A of 2017 and Writ Petition No.166-A of 2010]
Khan Afsar.
(in both cases)
…Petitioner (s)
Versus
Mst. Qudrat Jan widow and others.
(in CP No.3573)
Abdul Latif and others.
(in CP No.3574)
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
(in both cases)
: Mr. Muhammad Shuaib Abbasi,
ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
For the Respondent(s)
: N.R.
Date of Hearing
: 10.03.2023
O R D E R
Yahya Afridi, J:- Khan Afsar, the petitioner in both cases,
has challenged the concurrent findings of all three courts below,
which had maintained the findings of all four rungs of adjudicatory
hierarchy provided under revenue law.
2.
Despite being handicapped with adverse findings on
questions of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted on
raising issues already determined by the fora below, and thus was
cautioned that such factual issues, in the circumstances of the
present case, could not be reagitated and disturbed, and that too
by this Court at this stage.
3.
The issue relating to the commencement of the period of
limitation for a mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property was
S-Civil Petitions No.3573 and 3574 of 2020 (Final).docx
- 2 -
the crucial contested point between the parties. The learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the
sixty years period of limitation for the respondents to file their suit
for redemption of the disputed mortgaged property would
commence from the date of creation vide mutation no. 9395 dated
21.07.1935, and not from the date of expiry of the term of the
mortgage, as was determined by the three courts and the revenue
authorities below.
4.
Article 148 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1908 (‘Act’)
provides for the period of limitation for a mortgagor to redeem the
mortgage, it stipulates in terms that:
Against a mortgagee to
redeem or to recover
possession of immovable
property mortgaged.
Sixty
years
When the right to
redeem or to
recovery possession
accrues:
Given the above clear provision, we note that the cause of action
for a mortgagor to redeem the mortgage and recover the possession
of the mortgaged property would commence from the point when
the mortgagor can, under the terms of the mortgage, redeem the
mortgage property or recover the possession thereof. Thus, the
crucial determining factor for commencement of the period of
limitation would depend on the terms of the mortgage agreement
entered into between the parties. The situations that may arise
include the following scenarios, summarized as under:
I.
Where, under the terms of the agreement, a
specific date has been fixed for payment of
mortgage debt. In such a case, the money can
only be payable after the expiry of that period and
no right to redeem the mortgaged property can
S-Civil Petitions No.3573 and 3574 of 2020 (Final).docx
- 3 -
legally be entertained before the said date.1 A suit
for redemption of the mortgaged property can be
instituted by the mortgagor against the
mortgagee within sixty years, and the limitation
would start running from the date so agreed to
redeem the mortgage or recover possession of
immovable property mortgaged under Article 148
of the Limitation Act.2
II.
Where, under the terms of the agreement, the
mortgage is for a fixed period but without a
specific date of expiry of the term. In such a
case, the right of redemption can only arise on the
expiration of a specified period and not before. A
suit for redemption of the mortgaged property can
be instituted by the mortgagor against the
mortgagee within sixty years, and the limitation
would commence from the expiry of the period so
fixed.3
III.
Where, under the terms of the agreement,
neither any specific date nor any term is fixed.
In such a case, a suit for redemption of the
mortgaged property can be instituted by the
mortgagor against the mortgagee within sixty
years, and the limitation would run from the date
of the agreement of mortgage.4
5.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the mortgage
of the disputed property was entered on 21.07.1935, and that the
term of the mortgage was agreed and fixed for a term of twenty
years. This being the position, the cause of action of the
1
Nazeef v. Abdul Ghaffar, PLD 1966 SC 267 (Page-273)
2 Mohabat Khan v. Hazrat Jan, PLD 1988 SC 102 (Page-108)
3
Sher Muhammad v. Amanat Khan, 1991 MLD 1267 (Page-1270), Habibullah v. Mahmood
(1984 CLC 309 [SC (A J & K)]
4 Abdul Hanan v. Kapoor Khan (1970 SCMR 633), Karam Elahi v. Member, Board of Revenue,
N.-W.F.P. (1996 SCMR 1215), & Muhammad Luqman v. Allah Diwaya (2006 S C M R 718)
S-Civil Petitions No.3573 and 3574 of 2020 (Final).docx
- 4 -
respondents/mortgagors to redeem the mortgage of the disputed
property would accrue from the date of the expiry of the fixed term
period of 20 years, and thereafter the limitation period of sixty
years would commence. Thus, the term of twenty years of the
mortgage would expire on 21.07.1955, and thereafter, the period of
limitation of sixty years would commence, and the
respondents/mortgagors could file a suit for redemption of the
mortgage property until 21.07.2015. As in the present case, the
respondents/mortgagors filed their claim on 21.06.2010, the same
was well within the stipulated period of limitation provided under
Article 148 of the Schedule to the Act.
6.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein above, we find no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, so as to warrant
interference by this court. These petitions are thus dismissed, and
leave is refused.
Judge
Bench-IV
Islamabad
10.03.2023
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Rabbani*/
Judge