SOHAN LAL Vs. SHIV DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1978 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1975 passed by the trial Court was upheld.

(2.) It was alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that he and his two brothers, namely, Mangat Rama and Manohar Lal, defendants-respondents Nos. 6 and 7, were allotted land in lieu of their land in Pakistan on quasi permanent basis and, subsequently, proprietary rights were conferred on them, vide sand dated 21.12.1955, that the plaintiff-appellant and his two brothers took possession of the land allotted to them in the year 1949-50 and continued to be in possession of the same till December, 1955, when the proprietary rights were conferred on them; and that, at that time the land was free from encumbrances. In the alternative, it was alleged by the plaintiff that if there was any encumbrance of mortgage, that stood extinguished on account of the adverse possession of he plaintiff for more 12 years over the suit land. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 conspired with the revenue staff and factiously got a report made and, on that basis, obtained symbolical possession of the land in suit as mortgagees, thus casting cloud on the free title of the plaintiff and his brothers. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the revenue authorities were not competent to create any mortgage on the land of the plaintiff and the act of the revenue authority was without jurisdiction. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that, taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record, defendants-respondents Nos. 1 t 5 filed and application under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in suit as a tenant, which was not a fact. On the above facts, the plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the and his brothers (defendants-respondents Nos. 6 and 7) were the owners of the land, in dispute, and that defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 had nothing to do with the land a mortgagees, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and his two brothers.

(3.) Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit and filed written statement alleging that the allotment of the land of the plaintiff and his two brothers was subject to their mortgagee rights and the land allotted was not free from encumbrance. They asserted their possession over the land, in dispute, as mortgagees, as the land was mortgaged by the father of the plaintiff and defendants-respondents Nos. 6 and 7, to their ancestors more than 60 years back and the right of the plaintiff to redeem that land had extinguished. The plaintiff was stated by them to be tenant at will on the land in suit.