LILAWATI Vs. VISHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by plaintiff against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land bearing Khasra No. 95 Area 2.14 Dismil of village Sonaura, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan District Satna against the respondents alleging that in fact the aforesaid land was mortgaged with the respondent No. 1 and when the appellant tried to get the said mortgage redeemed, the respondents refused to deliver the possession therefore, the suit was required to be filed. It was contended that the respondents have started saying that the suit land was purchased and, therefore, there was no requirement of returning the possession after redemption of mortgage. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 1 was trying to grab the land of the appellant therefore, suit was required to be filed. The respondents/defendants contested the suit categorically contending that the suit land was in fact given in partition and the said land was purchased by respondent No. 1 by un-registered sale deed for an amount of Rs. 225/-. From the date of purchase the respondent No. 1 was continuously in possession of the said suit land and was cultivating the same. There was no question of any acquisition of right by inheritance in favour of the appellant/plaintiff as the suit land was already sold by the mother of the original appellant/plaintiff and this fact was well within the knowledge of the appellant. Since the suit land was purchased from the member of the family mutation of the land was not got done in the revenue papers. When the emergency was enforced in the country and instructions were issued by the Revenue Authorities, the respondent No. 1 got his name mutated over the land in suit in the revenue records. It was categorically denied that the suit land was ever mortgaged with the respondent No. 1. A plea of adverse possession was also raised.

(2.) The trial Court after framing of the issues recorded the evidence of the parties. The definite finding was given by the learned trial Court with respect to the plea of mortgage raised by the appellant as issue No. 2 was specifically framed in the following manner :-

(3.) The trial Court after recording the evidence categorically held that this issue was not proved by the appellant/plaintiff. Admittedly no appeal was filed against such finding of the learned trial Court by the appellant/plaintiff. Such a finding is therefore final and binding on the appellant and she could not travel beyond the same.