MUKH RAM Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgments and decree of the Courts below by which the suit stands dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit for possession with respect to land in suit against Surjit and Hem Kaur. To finance the said litigation, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 13000/- from Mangat Ram-defendant No. 1 - On the basis of compromise between the plaintiff and said Surjit, the suit was decreed. The plaintiff at the time of borrowing Rs. 13000/- had agreed with defendant No. 1 to mortgage the land after getting the same in pre-emption suit with defendant No. 1 with possession. Since the plaintiff did not comply with the agreement, defendant No. 1 brought a civil suit No. 171 of 1959 against the plaintiff for possession and also sought relief that plaintiff be directed to mortgage the land with him. This suit was decided on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 18th February, 1959 (exhibit P.6). As per the terms of the compromise, the plaintiff agreed that the land will be on mortgage with possession with defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 13000/-. It was also stipulated in the agreement that in case the said amount was not paid within a period of three years, defendant No. 1 would became the owner of the suit property. Admittedly the plaintiff did not pay the amount within the stipulated period. Defendant No. 1 filed suit for declaration that since the amount had not been paid in terms of the compromise, he had become the owner of the suit land. In the said case a compromise (Exhibit D-2) was filed. As per terms of D-2, the plaintiff admitted the claim of defendant No. 1 to be correct.

(3.) The plaintiff has brought the present suit for possession by way of redemption all that decree passed in Civil Suit No. 131 of 1965 (Exhibit P. 8) being a consent decree does not decide the rights of the parties and is, in fact, an agreement between the parties and is clog on equity of redemption and as such the mortgage which has not been got foreclosed subsists. So he claimed redemption of the said mortgage and also claimed possession.