BISHAN DEV SINGH Vs. GOPAL DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for possession by way of redemption has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The land, in dispute, originally belonged to Khair Mohammad who mortgaged the same in favour of Sher Mohammad on July 14, 1921. Sher Mohammad transferred the mortgagee rights in favour of Karim Baksh who further transferred his mortgagee rights in favour of Mst. Phazlan on January 12, 1927. Mst. Phaztan transferred her mortgagee rights in favour of Chaudhary Jai Ram Dass on payment of Rs. 2,700/- and delivered possession of the suit land along with other land. Thus, the said Chaudhary Jai Ram Dass became the mortgagee with possession in respect of the suit land. Mian Amar Singh, father of the defendant acquired ownership rights in the suit land from Khair Mohammad in lieu of the land jointly acquired and owned by Mian Amar Singh and his two brothers, Mian Sher Singh the father of the plaintiff and Mian Rup Singh. A civil litigation ensued between the above-said brothers and all the three brothers were declared as joint owners of the land by the order of High Court dated February 9,1961. According to the allegations of the plaintiff, Chaudhary Jai Ram Dass who was the mortgagee admitted that he had recently received Rs. 900/- from Gopal Dev, co-mortgagor of the suit land and in lieu thereof had effected redemption of the entire suit land. The defendant also admitted that he had got redeemed the entire land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas on payment of Rs. 900/- to Chaudhary Jai Ram Dass. Thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem and get possession from the defendant of their 7/18 share of the suit land on payment of Rs. 350/-.

(3.) The aforesaid facts as such were controverted. The main controversy was as to whether the suit was within time or not. The view taken by the Courts below was that the limitation was 60 years from the original mortgage, i.e. July 14, 1921, and thus, the suit filed on August 12, 1974, was barred by time in view of the amended Limitation Act and, thus, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.