HARI SINGH Vs. CHAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to arrive at a correct decision in this second appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts not only in detail but also with precision. In the decisions of the courts below there is considerable confusion of thinking both on the question of law as well as on the questions of fact. To say the least I have derived a very little assistance from the decisions rendered by the courts below.

(2.) NARAINA was the owner of the land with which we are concerned. He mortgaged a parcel of this land (hereinafter referred to as the first parcel) to Hari Singh, chand Singh and Kaka Singh sons of Bhola Singh on 23-12-1984 which will be equal to 1927 A. D. In the year 1928 A. D. he created a further charge on this very land in favour of the mortgagees. He again mortgaged another parcel of the land (hereinafter referred to as the second parcel of land) to Teku and Harnama. Teku sold his mortgagee rights in the second parcel of land to the extent of 1/2 to hari Singh, Chand Singh and Kaka Singh. Naraina then died. He was succeeded to by Roor Singh. On the death of Roor Singh, his widow Smt. Bhagwan Kaur created a fresh mortgage on the said two parcels of land, along with some other land in favour of Chand Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Nihal Singh sons of Sadha Singh. The mortgagees of the first parcel of land are the plaintiffs and the mortgagees from smt. Bhagwan Kaur (hereinafter described as defendant No. 1) are the parties to the present litigation.

(3.) IT is also alleged that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur relinquished her right of redemption in favour of her daughter but the lower appellate Court found that there was, in fact, no valid relinquishment. This matter does not require any further consideration.