' Tanveer-ul-Haq etc. Respondent/plaintiff filed petition under Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 regarding 4 Kanals of land mortgaged by their predecessor. This application was accepted by the Collector. However, the appeal filed against the order of the Collector was accepted. The revision petition filed by the respondent in Board of Revenue was dismissed vide order dated 24-1-1991. The respondent challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 11-6-1988 and Member, Board of Revenue dated 24-1-1991 as illegal, ineffective upon their rights, by filing civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Narowal on the ground that appellant purchased the equity of mortgage from Mumtaz and Balqees through Mutation No,325 dated 27-3-1995 which tentamounts to acknowledgment of period of 60 years to start from 27-3-1950, the mortgage was still subsisting therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for redemption of the above stated land. This assertion was denied by the petitioner by filing the written statement. It was contended that mortgage being old more than 60 years the respondent/plaintiff had become owners of the suit-land by prescription of time. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff vide 'his judgment dated 31-7-1993. He declared that plaintiffs were owner in possession and the orders of Additional Commissioner, Gujranwala dated 11-6-1988 and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 24-11-1991 with respect to the suit-land were void, illegal and without jurisdiction and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 15-10-1996. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of case reported as PLD 1984 Journal 162, observed that period of 60 years is to start from 1950 and not from 1923/1924 as asserted by the respondents.
2. Petitioner has referred to section 17 of the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 and argues that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. He states that the Civil Court could have not entertained any claim, enforced any right under a mortgage declared extinguished or to question the validity of any proceedings. It is added that it is a case of misapplication of law resulting in patently unjust decisions made by both the learned lower Courts.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Additional Commissioner as well as the Member, Board of Revenue have wrongly computed the period of limitation from the year 1923-24 whereas the suit-land measuring 4 Kanals comprising of Khasra No,311 according to Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 situated in Mauza Maghral was owned by Mst. Meeran Bibi etc. Which was mortgaged to Kaiser Singh, a non-Muslim. Later on this mortgage was transferred in favour of Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Balqees from whom Barkat Ali (deceased) purchased mortgagee rights through Mutation No,325 sanctioned on 27-3-1950 (copy of Mutation Exh.D.2).
4. The property was mortgaged in the year 1896. The mortgagees sold their rights of mortgaged land through Mutation No,325 dated 27-3-1950. Mutation refers that the vendors were selling their mortgage rights so the acknowledgment is obvious that they were mortgagees. The fact of mortgage having further been acknowledged in 1950 the period of 60 years for redemption was far away. Consequently the respondent/ defendant was entitled to redeem the land on payment of the mortgage amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35 while interpreting sections 4, 19, 28 and Article 148 of the Limitation Act examined the effect of acknowledgment of right of redemption by Government notification on the basis of Revenue Record and held. That:-- "Government by notification acknowledged right of redemption of mortgagor and more particularly entry in Revenue Record showing mortgagor as owner/mortgagor and Central Government as mortgagee in 1969 which constituted acknowledgment in writing before expiration of period. Of limitation under section 19, Limitation Act, 1908. Fresh period of limitation, held, accrued in favour of mortgagee in circumstances."
The observation has been adopted by the Peshawar High Court in case of Faqir Gul and others v.
Abdul Rehman 1999 CLC 46. The Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue misinterpreted the principle of acknowledgment contained in section 19 of the Limitation Act with mala fide intention. The Civil Court is the Court of ultimate jurisdiction. Section 17 of the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 only protects the proceedings conducted in accordance with the law and in good faith and no Civil Court can entertain any claim, enforce any right under a mortgage declared extinguished or to question the validity of any proceedings. In the present case the proceedings before the Additional CommisSioner and Member, Board of Revenue have been rightly challenged by the respondent-plaintiff by filing civil suit. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below on the question that period of limitation has not expired is based on evidence which cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed with cost.