P L D 1957 W (PLP)
ALI HUSAIN SHAH and others‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN MOHMUD KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI HUSAIN SHAH and others‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN MOHMUD KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (ALI HUSAIN SHAH and others‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN MOHMUD KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Anwar Advocate for Petitioner.
- Abdul Hamid Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Subrogation procedure does not come into existence unless whole mortgage is redeemed‑Redemption of whole mortgage by co‑sharer merely means extinguishing whole connection of original mortgagee‑Co‑sharer redeeming mortgage ‑Such co‑sharer becomes mortgagee of other co‑sharers.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
These three revision cases have arisen from a dispute between the two co‑sharers of certain property which was mortgaged before 1901. One of the co‑sharers redeemed the mortgages relating to the land in 1925 or so. The other party who did not join in the transaction of redemption at that time wants his share to be restituted under the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. The party of the present petitioners represent the co sharer who paid off the mortgagees in 1925. They claim that the mortgages were redeemed in full at that time and that, therefore, the relationship between the two parties could not be described as a relationship which had come into existence before 1901. There is no doubt that the subrogation procedure does not come into existence unless the whole mortgage is redeemed, but this does not mean that the mortgage by the other co‑sharer goes out of existence. The redemption of the whole mortgage merely means extingui shing the whole connection of the original mortgagee, When subrogation is stated to mean that the co‑sharer redeeming the mortgage has the same rights relating to the share of the other co‑sharers as far as the redemption of their land is concerned, the only reasonable interpretation is that the relationship between the redeeming co‑sharer and the remaining co‑sharers, in respect of the share of the latter, is that of a mortgage which came into existence at the same time as the original mortgage. In these circumstances, the parties in the three cases must get their dispute settled under the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. The only other point mentioned is that the application of the present respondent in case No. 77 was lodged on 8th November 1954. whereas the original mortgage had bee n executed on 8th December 1890. The limitation question was considered by the Collector and he decided that the suit was within time because the right of redemption had been post poned to five years in the original mortgage deed. This conclusion of the Collector is in accordance with the accepted principles of law. In the above circumstances, I dismiss these three petitions for revision. K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.