KUNJ BIHARI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the consecutive findings of the trial Court in Civil Suit No.89-A/89 judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/1991, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Surajpur, and in Civil Appeal No.13-A/98, in Civil Appeal No.13- A/1998, judgment and decree dtd. 18/12/1998, passed by the Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur, Camp Board- Surajpur, District- Sarguja, by holding that the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants are barred by limitation.

(2.) The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is this that the grand father of the appellants had mortgaged the land bearing Kh. No.2170 area 0.08 acres, 2171 area 0.19, acres and Khasra Number 2172 area 0.04 acres under his title and ownership in favour of the father of the defendant No.2 for a loan of Rs.1600.00, regarding which mortgage deed was executed on 14/4/1951 by handing over the possession of the property to Banarsi Das and Lacchuram on the same date. The terms of the mortgage deed is this that after completion of two yeas, the amount will be repaid without interest and the possession of the property will be handed over back to the first party. It is pleaded in the plaint that because of financial difficulties, the mortgaged property could not be redeemed after payment of loan and the grand father of the appellant No.1 and 2 and father of the appellants No.5 to 7 expired on 20/2/1975. The appellants came to know about the usufructuary mortgage deed dtd. 14/4/1951 for the first time on 19/5/1989, thereafter, offer was made from the appellants side for repayment of loan of Rs.1600.00 and for redemption of the mortgage property, which was refused by the respondents side. Hence, the suit was brought praying for grant of reliefs.

(3.) In written statement, it was replied that late Sitaram Sao was a party to the usufructuary mortgage deed dtd. 14/4/1951, which was a registered deed. During his lifetime, late Sitaram never made proposition for repayment of loan and for redemption of mortgage property. It was denied that appellant came to know of the mortgage for the first time on 14/4/1981. The other pleadings were also denied praying for dismissal of the suit.