ATTAR SINGH Vs. RAM DHARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Attar Singh one of the legal representatives of defendant No. 1-Ram Sarup since deceased has filed the instant second appeal. Respondents No. 1 to 10/plaintiffs who filed the suit against Ram Sarup and others i.e. appellant and Performa respondents No. 11 to 32 including predecessors of some of them (since deceased) were non-suited by the trial court but have been successful in the lower appellate court.

(2.) Plaintiffs' case is that Lakhi mortgaged his 11 bighas 17 biswas land with Kanhiya and Hari Singh on 26.2.1923 for Rs 1100/- and mutation No. 803 was sanctioned on 263.1923. However, the suit land measuring 12 biswas was not mortgaged. Plaintiffs' predecessor Karmu who was recorded as joint owner of the suit land never mortgaged it with predecessors of the defendants. However, in the revenue record the plaintiffs and their predecessors were wrongly recorded as mortgagors and defendants and their predecessors were recorded as mortgagees of the suit land also. Mortgage of 11 bighas 17 biswas land has also since been redeemed vide mutation No. 2515 dated 29.11.1960. However, even thereafter the suit land continues to be recorded to be under mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that the aforesaid revenue entries depicting plaintiffs and their predecessors as mortgagors and defendants and their predecessors as mortgagees of the suit land art incorrect and are liable to be corrected. The plaintiffs also sought relief of possession of the suit land-along with permanent injunction.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 6 (now represented by appellant and Performa respondents No. 11 to 31) contested the suit. However, it was admitted that land measuring 11 bighas 17 biswas was mortgaged with predecessors of the defendants on 26.2.1923. It was, however, pleaded that revenue entries regarding suit land are correct. It was pleaded that mortgage of the suit land was not got redeemed. Possession of the defendants over the suit land is as mortgagees with the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs and their predecessors. Various other pleas were also raised.