INDER SINGH Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against whom the plaintiff-respondent's suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but in appeal, the decree passed by it was set aside and his suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 44 kanals 14 marlas was decreed on the basis of the title by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. According to him, the same was orally mortgaged by him with possession with the defendants for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on Dec. 10, 1960. As the defendants did not allow him to redeem the suit land, the present suit for redemption was filed. Later on, amendment of the plaint was sought which was allowed, in appeal, and the plaintiff, in the alternative, claimed possession of the suit land, on the basis of his title. In the written statement. The defendants denied any mortgage having been created in their favour by him. It was alleged that he had desired defendant No. 4 to arrange the marriage of his daughter with Mukhtiar Singh, the sister's son of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, The said marriage was arranged accordingly. Thereafter, he expressed his intention to sell the suit land which was agreed to be purchased by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, for a sum of Rupees 5,000/- According to them, the said amount was paid to him, though the sale amount was paid to him, though the sale deed was not executed as the latter represented to the former at that time that he being under taccavi debt, would not be able to get permission from the Tahsil to sell the land, and that since then, they are in possession of the suit land in their own rights as the owners. They further alleged that in any case, they had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the suit land was mortgaged by the plaintiff with defendant Nos. 1 to 3, as alleged, and if so, under what terms and conditions? 2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as alleged ?

(3.) WHETHER the suit is not maintainable in the present form?