MANJIT KAUR Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction alleging that they had become owners of the land measuring 8 kanals bearing khasra No. 39/23(8-0) situated in village Dutttal. Plaintiff No. 1 was widow and Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9 were children of Kapoor Chand. Inder Singh was the owner of the suit land. Inder Singh appointed Parra Singh as his attorney qua the suit land on 17.9.1969. Parra Singh mortgaged the suit property for a sum of 2,000/-with Kapoor Chand vide registered mortgage deed dated 17.7.1973. The entry was made in the revenue record qua the mortgage deed. Kapoor Chand expired on 15.5.1997. During his life time, Kapoor Chand remained in possession of the suit land as mortgagee and after his death, Plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land. In Hari 2003, Defendants took forcible possession of the suit land. Statutory period of 30 years had expired and the land had not been got redeemed. Hence, the Plaintiffs had become owners of the suit land.

(2.) The Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Parra Singh had sold land measuring 14 kanals 9 marlas vide sale deed dated 27.11.1975 to father of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and remaining Defendants for a consideration of ' 8,000/-. Mutation qua the sale deed was duly sanctioned. Parra Singh delivered the possession of the suit property to the purchasers at the time of execution of the sale deed. Parra Singh had paid the mortgage money of ' 2,000/-to Kapoor Chand and a receipt had been issued in this regard on the original mortgage deed. Kapoor Chand assured that he would get the land redeemed from the Patwari. Although Parra Singh had mortgaged 8 kanals of land with Kapoor Chand but in connivance with the revenue officials, an entry was got in the revenue record by Kapoor Chand qua mortgage of 14 kanals 9 marlas of land. An application was moved by the Defendants for correction of entry in the khasra girdawari and the same pending. An application was also moved for redemption of suit land. The Defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land since the date of purchase of land by them.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: