KRISHAN Vs. SURTA ALIAS SURAT AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 13868-CII of 2011

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by petitioner-plaintiff against respondents-defendants that he and pro forma respondents-defendants have become owners in possession of the land in dispute on the brief allegations that the land in dispute was mortgaged with possession by Tota, father of defendant no.1, in favour of Bharat Singh, who was ancestor of plaintiffs and pro forma respondents-defendants and that a receipt for Rs. 2,000/- dated 11.8.1967 was executed by mortgagor in favour of mortgagee and as the said mortgage had not been redeemed, hence, petitioner-plaintiff and pro forma respondents-defendants have become owners in possession of the same, after expiry of period of redemption. The suit has been contested by respondents-defendants on the plea that no such receipt for creating mortgage was ever executed by father of defendant no.1 in favour of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and that no such mortgage was ever created.