KARNAIL SINGH Vs. KAPUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 922 of 1985 and 923 of 1985, as they arise out of the same suit.

(2.) BY these appeals the appellants have assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit for possession by redemption but restricting the delivery of physical possession.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has not correctly come to the conclusion and erroneously relied upon Exhibits D1 and D2 which do not create a lease in favour of the mortgagees prior to the mortgage, nor even thereafter. The view of the learned SIngle Judge is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel, after referring to Exhibit D1, argued that Mehanga Ram had not created any tenancy in favour of Kapur Singh vide, Exhibit D1 and in favour of Kundan Singh vide Exhibit D2. Paramjit Singh is none else but the son of Kundan Singh. There is no privity of contract between Mehanga Ram or his vendees with Tehal Singh or Paramjit Singh. Exhibit D1 was executed on July 21, 1973. Reference was made to the statements of Mehanga Ram, Kapur Singh (DW1) and Amar Nath (DW3).