KAUR CHAND Vs. DEFENDANTS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS present suit was filed by Defendants Raj and Anant Ram against Kaur Chand and others for possession of land. The ground on which possession was claimed was that the land was under mortgage with Kaur Chand's father Bhagat Ram and had been redeemed. After redemption, Kaur chand had taken forcible possession of the land. The defence to the suit set up by 'kaur Chand was that Bhagat Ram had divided the mortgagee rights between his sons Bachan Dass and Kaur chand and therefore Kaur Chand was in possession of the property as a mortgagee, and there being no redemption by him the plaintiff's could not take possession of the land. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the mortgagee was Bhagat Ram and there was no partition of the mortgagee rights between Bachan Das and Kaur Chand. The plea of Kaur Chand that the mortgage in favour of Bhagat Ram had not been redeemed was negatived on the ground that Bhagat Ram admitted in the trial that he had received the entire mortgage money and had handed back the possession to the mortgagor. In the Courts below on the question of redemption by Bhagat Ram Kaur Chand contended that the endorsements on the mortgage deeds acknowledging the payment of the entire mortgage money were inadmissible in evidence under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act (XVI of 1908 ). The plea was based on the ground that the endorsements not merely stated about the receipt of the mortgage money but went further and stated that the mortgage had been extinguished. This plea did not prevail with the Courts below. Moreover, relying on the statement of Bhagat Ram, the Courts below were of the opinion that the redemption was proved independently of the endorsements on the mortgage deeds. Dissatisfied with this decision, Kaur Chand has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I see no merit in this appeal. In my view the endorsements on the mortgage deeds are clearly admissible in evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 17 (2) (xi) of the Indian Registration Act, which is in these terms:

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.