PITAMBER SINGH Vs. SAWAN SINGH (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly put, Sarup Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs, mortgaged his land measuring 19 Killas and 8 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 1714, 1718, 1719 and 1720 with one Lal Singh for a sum of Rs. 1360/- on 10.6.1923. Lal Singh sold his mortgage rights to Mangat Singh on 3.11.1923 who in turn sold 1/2 of it to one Hans Raj and the other half share to Heera s/o Maru and Munshi s/o Dalip. Subsequently by mutual agreement land comprised in khasra No. 1714 and 1718 was released from the mortgage and so the remaining land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1719 and 1720 remained mortgaged. This was duly reflected in the revenue record vide mutation dated 8.7.1944. According to plaintiffs, land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 515/827, Khasra Nos. 102/1 103/3/2, 4 and 5 were allotted in lieu of Khasra Nos 1719 and 1720. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that they filed an application for redemption of land on payment of mortgage amount before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala, who, however rejected the same without going into the merits of the case. The Collector vide order dated 24.12.1970 rejected this application, yet permitted the petitioners (now plaintiffs) to file a fresh application according to law. It is in evidence that the plaintiff filed another application but the same was dismissed being incompetent in view of the specific bar contained in Section 13 of the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1903, and so the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement admitting therein that the land measuring 19 kanals 8 marlas allotted in lieu of earlier Khasra Nos. is mortgaged with possession with the defendants. However, the defendants averred that since the mortgage had no been redeemed in time, the defendants have become owner of the suit land. The defendants further controverted the various averments made in the plaint by filing a detailed written statement.