LAWS(P&H)-1992-4-22

OM PARKASH Vs. PALU RAM

Decided On April 01, 1992
OM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
PALU RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, one Jiwan Dass son of Shiv Dayal of village Nagar had 1/4th share in the laud measuring 2 Bighas 5 Biswas comprised in khasra No. 379 situated within the area of village Garni Sari Nam Dar Khan tehsil Gohana. Said Jiwan Dass mortgaged his share vide mortgage deed dated 11-9-1911 in favour of Parmeshwari Dass son of Ram Parsad. Mutation No. 26 dated 10-6 1913 was also entered regarding this mortgage. The plaintiff has alleged that he is the adopted son of Parmeshwari Dass, the mortgagee, whereas the defendant is the successor-in-interest of Jiwan Dass, the mortgagor. The plaintiff has averred that in lieu of khasra No. 379, land measuring 10 Kanals 3 Marlas was allotted during consolidation of holdings which is now comprised in khewat No. 10, khata No. 10, rectangle and killas Nos. 4 /15/2 (5 Kanals 6 Marlas) and 16 (4 Kanals 17 Marlas ). It has been stated by the plaintiff that the said mortgage was with possession with Parmeshwari Dass and that he has been in joint possession of the said land from the date of mortgage. He further stated in the plaint that because a period of more than 60 years. has elapsed and the mortgage was not redeemed by the mortgagor or his successors-in-interest, therefore, he (plaintiff) has become the owner of the suit property by afflux of time. As the defendant refused to admit him as owner of the suit land, the plaintiff filed this suit for declaration or in the alternative for joint possession of the suit land as the right of the defendant to redeem the same has extinguished.

(3.) THE defendant filed written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint. The factum of mortgage was also denied it has been averred that the defendant has been in possession of the land in question as owner. His other pleas are that the suit is barred by limitation; the plaintiff was never adopted; and that even. if the factum of mortgage is established, the land was redeemed.