SADHU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sadhu, Parsa and Atma Ram sons of Rulia, appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by way of consequential relief claiming that they were the absolute owners of the land in dispute which came to be allotted to them in lieu of the property one held by Mst. Satri and escheated to the State Government. It is not necessary to notice the facts in details or reproduced the issues framed in the suit. The plaintiffs got possession of the property as mortgagees having purchased the mortgagee rights and the property having not been redeemed for a period of over 30 years, they became the owners thereof by prescription and lapse of time. They also claimed that they have become owners by adverse possession. The mutation sanctioned in favour of the State Government in respect of this property on the death of Satri the original mortgagor on account of escheat was challenged being illegal and ineffective qua their rights. In the alternative it was plead that they were entitled to hold possession of the land until it was lawfully redeemed. The State Government contested the claim of the plaintiffs by pleading that the land had been escheated to the Government because Mst. Satri did not leave behind any heir to succeed to her estate. The other pleas taken by the plaintiffs including the plea of adverse possession or their having become owners by prescription were also denied.

(2.) The trial Court by judgment and decree dated September 30, 1976 dismissed the suit, primarily, by holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove adverse possession or that they had become owners of the property by prescription. They were, however, held to be in occupation of the suit land as mortgagees under the owner. On appeal, learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings as recorded by the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated August 27, 1979 only two pleas were raised before the learned Additional District Judge, namely, that the plaintiffs having purchased the mortgagee rights from Bhikhan and having stepped into the shoes of the mortgagee, they have come in possession of the land in question for the last more than 60 years and no suit for redemption having been filed by the mortgagor, they have become owners thereof and, secondly, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs being in possession of the property have perfected their title by way of adverse possession, being in possession of the suit property for a period of over 12 years. Both these pleas were rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by holding that the evidence on record did not establish that the plaintiffs had become owners by adverse possession and that they had failed to show the date on which they became the mortgagees and the terms thereof from which it could be ascertained as to when the period to redeem the property started and, therefore, they could not be said to have become owners by prescription.

(3.) The finding, as recorded by the trial Court hold the plaintiffs to be in possession, was not assailed.