MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit of the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that the plaintiff has become the owner alongwith proforma defendant Nos. 5 to 21 of the land measuring 29 kanals 19 marlas on account of the lapse of time and failure of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage and for injunction restraining the Union of India alongwith the three other defendants from allotting the property to any other person having been dismissed by the two Courts below, he has corns to this Court in the present appeal. . A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant claims that the suit land was mortgaged in the year 1874 by Ahmam son of Rahim, Jimmu and Musaddi sons of Hukam Jiwa son of Salu, Dara, Rana, Jaggu and Sahu to Phulla, Balak Ram and Bakhtawar Singh, predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and defendant Nos. 5 to 21. A copy of the farad jamabandi in support of this assertion was produced alongwith the plaint. It is further averred that the land having not been redeemed the appellant and other co-mortgagees became the owners in possession as the right of redemption had been extinguished on the lapse of 60 years in 1934. When after the partition of the country in the year 1947, the Rehabilitation Department instead of acknowledging the right1 of the appellaat and other co-mortgagees entered a mutation in favour of the Union of India on July 5, 1975 and even threatened to allot/ auction the property, the plaintiff appellant instituted the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen

(3.) A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-respondents, in which besides raising certain preliminary objections relating to the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the controversy, it was averred that the land in dispute was owned by the muslims and after their migration to Pakistan, all their rights/interests stood vested in the Custodian, of the State under Section 4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 194 7, It was further averred that on the promulgation of Central Act No. 31 of 1950, viz the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the property came to vest in the Custodian under sub-section 2-A of Section 8 of the 1950 Act. It has been further averred that the land in dispute is a composite property as defined by clause (d) of Section 2 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 and since 20 years had already expired, by virtue of the provision of Section 9 (2) of the said Act, the mortgage stood redeemed and extinguished by operation of law. On these premises, it is claimed that the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title or interest in the property. Further averment of the plaintiff that the land was allotted during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land which was the subject matter of the mortgage was admitted The averment of the plaintiff in paragraph 8 that he had continued to be in possession of the land was, however, denied. On these pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :