SARDOOL SINGH Vs. KASHMIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-defendants, have filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby judgment and decree dated 15.02.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur, has been set aside and the plaintiff's suit for recovery, has been decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,35,058/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the daughter of Lachman Singh son of Gehna Singh, who was the owner in possession of the land as described in the plaint. Defendant no. 1-Sardool Singh, is the son of Lachman Singh and defendants no. 2 and 3 i.e. Gurmit Kaur and Amarbir Singh are the wife and son of Sardool Singh, respectively. Lachman Singh (since deceased) filed a suit no 103 of 01.10.1990, for declaration that his son-Sardool Singh and the judgment debtor has obtained a collusive decree by way of coercion and fraud and the same be declared null and void. The said suit was decreed in favour of Lachman Singh on 10.01.1996. Executing Court put the plaintiff in possession and execution was consigned as satisfied. It is pleaded that defendant no. 3-Amarbir Singh pledged a part of the suit property which was the subject matter of execution with SBI Bank, Tibri Road, Gurdaspur for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- It is pleaded that the land was fraudulently pledged without permission and notice to the plaintiff. Defendants no. 2 and 3, filed objections in the execution which were dismissed on 29.01.2011 and all the defendants were liable to repay the amount jointly and severally. The amount of loan taken from the bank was intentionally not repaid by the defendants and the plaintiff, it is pleaded was compelled to deposit the loan amount with the bank on 05.06.2012, which was credited in the account of Amarbir Singh, defendant no. 3, vide account no. 30148436897. Plaintiff asked the defendants to return the loan amount, but they refused. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit. Written statement was filed. Various preliminary objections were raised therein. It is admitted that Lachman Singh, was the owner in possession of the suit property. Relationship between the parties, is admitted. It is further admitted that the defendants had mortgaged the land in question with SBI. A loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- was taken by Amarbir Singh during the pendency of the suit. It is however stated that Amarbir Singh had repaid many of the installments to SBI on account of the mortgage. Dismissal of the suit was prayed.