1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal by leave of the court is directed from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 11-4-1977, passed in R. S. A. No, 118 of 1968, whereby appeal of the respondents against the judgment of the learned District Judge Derajat Camp Bannu dated 15-1- 1968 confirming the decree and judgment passed by Civil Judge III Class Lakki dated 10-11-1966 in favour of appellants, was accepted by the impugned judgment.
2. ' The circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are briefly stated that Arsala Khan etc. Predecessors-in-interest of the respondents in this appeal were the owners of 3/5th share of 729 kanals 10 marlas land, situated in village Chauk Jandha Shamali, Tehsil Lakki, District Bannu. On 8- 8-1895 the said Arsala Khan mortgaged the said land alongwith some other land to one Ghulam Rasul by a registered mortgage deed for Rs,2,000 and no period for the said mortgage was fixed but it was agreed upon that it could be redeemed at any time within 60 years on payment of the mortgage charges.
3. ' On 12-12-1948 the original mortgagee gifted his mortgage rights to his son Imam Shah and others.
4. On 13-5-1952 after coming into force N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act XXXII of 1950, one Abdullah Khan made an application to the Collector N.-W.F.P. Under the said Act for restitution of possession of the land mortgaged by his predecessor-in-interest which was dismissed by the Collector on the ground that the restitution could not be done before the expiry of 15 years as the original mortgage rights had been transferred before 1-1-1949. Thereafter the mortgagors kept quiet and did nothing for the redemption of the restitution of the mortgage.
5. ' Imam Shah, present predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a declaratory suit against the present respondents on 18-6-1965 that he alongwith other co-mortgagees who were impleaded as defendants in the suit had become owners of the suit land by prescription on account of having remained mortgagees more than 60 years. One of the defendants Abdullah contested the suit and S. Rest were placed ex pane. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil judge III Class Lakki framed contesting issues and after recording evidence adduced by the parties the learned Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 10-11-1966 decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Muhammad Ullah one of the defendants filed appeal before the District Judge Derajat at Bannu when vide his judgment dated 16-1-1968 dismissed the appeal.
6. ' Aggrieved by the said judgment Muhammad Ullah respondent went in regular second appeal before the Peshawar High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the second appeal, accepted the second appeal and concluded as under:- "It appears that the Courts below did not notice the significance of the word "extinguished" in S.8 of the repealed Act. It follows from it that there was no justification for staying the application of the appellant in the Revenue forum for restitution of his land, for, the respondents had not become absolute owners under the statutory title acquired by 60 years' possession. The suit of the plaintiff was obviously worthy of dismissal. In this view of the matter, the conclusion is that the finding of the Courts below is reversed and the decree in favour of the respondents is set aside and the appeal is accepted with costs throughout."
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that after 8-8-1955 the mortgage did not exist as the period of 60 years from the date on which the mortgage was originally entered by a registered deed has already elapsed, therefore the question of its redemption or restitution did not arise and the findings of the learned High Court holding that mortgage existed uptil 1-1-1963 and after that extinguished is based on erroneous observation. Now the question is as to whether for the purpose of redemption and restitution, the mortgage ceased to exist on the expiry of 60 years i.e, on 8-8-1955 or as to whether the mortgage did exist until 1-1- 1963 when 15 years according to section 8 of Act XXXII of 1952 are added to 1-1-1948.
8. ' The Act XXXII of 1950 was repealed by Act XIX of 1964 enforced on 31-7-1964. The preamble of the Act reads "Whereas it is expedient to consolidate the law relating to redemption and restitution of certain mortgages of land in the Province of West Pakistan in the manner herein appearing; it is hereby enacted as follows:- "Hence the object of Act XIX of 1964 is to consolidate the existing law relating to restitution and redemption. Section 24(2) relates to the repeal of the previous enactments which reads as under:- "(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1), all proceedings commenced, rules framed, orders made and other acts done under any of the repealed enactments, shall, if not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, so far as may be, be deemed to have been respectively commenced, framed, made and done under this Act."
9. Section 8 of the repealed Act gives 15 years further period to the sub-mortgages, assigner, effected on or before 1-1-1948 but at the same time the mortgage is deemed to extinguish; the word 'extinguish' is significant. The Act XIX of 1964 leaves no scope for the mortgages which had already extinguished. Hence, Act XIX of 1964 attracts also the operation of section 6 of General Clauses Act which reads as under:- "6. Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not--
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; Or The object of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, is clear and leaves the pending proceedings commenced under the old Act unaffected by the repealed Act. The latter enactment which superseded an earlier Act, put an end to the earlier state of law and intends the continuance of the rights accrued under the superseded enactment unless an express or implied indication in the latter enactment is designed to completely obliterate the earlier state of law. The mortgage automatically stands extinguished under section 8 of the repealed Act XXXII of 1950. Thus the appellants cannot become the absolute owners under the statutory title required by 60 years period.
10. ' Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record in the light of the legal position of the case. The result is that we find no force in this appeal and is hereby dismissed with costs.