HARI SINGH Vs. DHIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, which amount to sufficient cause, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 10279-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, which amounts to sufficient cause, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 3340 of 2009 Heard. This second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants is directed Regular Second Appeal No. 3340 of 2009 {2} against the judgment dated 11.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurdaspur, vide which he dismissed their suit for possession of the land in dispute measuring 27 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Chaunta, Had Bast No. 692 Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

(2.) The plaintiffs pleaded in their plaint that the forefathers of the defendants were the owners of the land situated in village Pindi Kalan (Pakistan), which was mortgaged in favour of their forefathers during Chagatta Rule. After the partition of the country, their forefathers were allotted land in village Chaunta in lieu of the land left by them as mortgagees in Pakistan and they continued in possession thereof. After the consolidation of holdings, their forefathers had been coming in possession of the land in dispute as such and after their death, they are coming in possession thereof. By way of long possession, their mortgagee rights have matured into ownership as the defendants failed to get the land redeemed within the period of limitation. The defendants have lost the right of redemption by efflux of time.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants. In their written statement they denied the contentions of the plaintiffs and pleaded that they are coming in possession of the land in dispute and the rights of the plaintiffs, if any, in this land stood extinguished by lapse of time. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is barred by limitation.