It was dismissed by the Collector on 1.12.1980 as barred by time.
The appellants who succeeded to the suit land after death of their father made an application on 2.4.1979 to the Collector, Ghumarwin, under section 4 of the H.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1976.
One Punnu father of the appellants mortgaged with possession the suit property with father of the respondents on 26 Magh 2003 BK companyresponding to February 19, 1946 for a companysideration of Rs.830/ .
The defendants companytested the suit, on grounds, inter alia, of limitation.
The trial companyrt though answered the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability in view of the dismissal of their application by the Collector.
The answer to the question depends on whether the suit is one for redemption of the mortgage or is one for recovery of possession of the property which had been mortgaged by predecessor of the plaintiffs with the father of the defendants.
Hence this appeal.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt had answered the question in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the suit was filed within time.
The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for possession of the land in dispute under sections 4 and 5 of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976 for short the Act .
P.MOHAPATRA, J. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the High Court is right in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants as barred by limitation.
The first appellate companyrt reversed the finding of number maintainability of the suit companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that the suit was filed within time and decreed the suit.
