On 27-10-1987 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents mortgaged the suit land in favour of one Muhammad Ramzan vide Mutation No.348 attested on 5-6-1912. These mortgagee rights were sold to Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Khan vide Mutation No.373 attested on 25-3-1927 who sold the same to his father vide Mutation No.604 attested on- 4-6-1931. It was alleged in the plaint that since the respondents have not redeemed the land within the time prescribed by law the petitioner has become the owner of the land and be declared as such. In their written statement the respondents took the plea that limitation for redemption has not expired and in any event they are in possession of the suit land and that section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not attracted. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15-4-1989. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a first appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat who allowed the same and dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 8-11-1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues with reference to the case of Muhammad Zaman and 4 others v. Sikandar Khan and 5 others (1991 CLC 197) that the subsequent mutation would not restart the period of limitation and that the learned Courts below haft misread the evidence on record. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record. To my mind the subsequent sale of mortgagee rights did constitute acknowledgement which, gave a fresh start to the period of limitation. The last sale was made on 4-6-1931 and the suit was definitely premature on the said ground on 27-10-1987.
4. There is yet another aspect of the case. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently found that the respondents have remained in possession throughout. This finding of fact has not even been questioned by the learned counsel. In this view of the matter I do agree with the learned Courts below that it is only a suit for possession of the mortgaged land which would be barred under the said provisions of law which has since been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. Since the respondents are in possession, there is no question of a suit being barred by time filing whereof is not required at all. This Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed leaving, the parties to bear their own costs.