BALJEET SINGH Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2016 vide which the application for permission to lead additional evidence moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that the land in question measuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas comprising Khewat No.1369, Khatoni No.1634, Rectangle No.96 Killa No.7/1 (3-4), Kitta-1 is situated within the revenue estate of Village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, vide jamabandi for the year 2010-2011. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner that the land mentioned above came after bandobast and consolidation in lieu of land comprised in old khasra Nos.1406, 4918, 5696, 5715, 5716, 5717, 5719, 5720, 5722, 5724, 5726, 5727, 5728, 5730, 5731 to 5743, 5745 to 5748, 5706, 5771, 5777, 5778, 5779, 6187, 6188, 6189, 6190, 5721, 5725, 5723, 5729, 5744 (78 Bighas - 3 Biswas), Khewat No.641, Khatoni No.667 vide jamabandi for the year 1882-83. It was further the case set up that Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna, the predecessors-in- interest of the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land to the extent of 2/3 share of the land mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff- petitioner that the land mentioned in para-2 of the plaint was apportioned between the owners and was divided in the khewats including the suit land and separate khatonis were allotted to the mortgagor i.e. predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff- petitioner and two separate suits for redemption of other two parts of the land were also being filed by the plaintiff- petitioner. It was further pleaded that the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna had mortgaged the land with possession with Samanda, adopted son of Harlal and Nand Lal, adopted son of Ram Lal, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants for an amount of Rs.99/- as mortgage money vide jamabandi for the year 1882-1883 as mentioned in column No.4. It was further the case that the defendant-respondents are transferees of the mortagee rights.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.