PURAN SINGH Vs. HARPHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF , Puran Singh having concurrently remained unsuccessful before the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of 1/2 share of the land in dispute measuring 25 bighas 15 biswas on the ground that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit land and, as such, was entitled to the possession of the same and the defendants were no more entitled to redeem the land. The plaintiff averred that a registered deed of mortgage dated June 26, 1923 was executed by Sant Singh and Bhagwan Singh sons of Narain Singh whereby land comprised in khasra No. 898 measuring 27 bighas had been mortgaged with possession by them for a sum of Rs. 5,705/- in favour of one Gokal Chand. It was further stated in the plaint that the aforesaid land along with three other khasra numbers 75, 785 and 626 all measuring 56 bighas 18 biswas was already under mortgage with possession with aforesaid Gokal Chand for a sum of Rs. 3,087/- ever since 1965 BK. The aforesaid mortgage was executed by Sant Singh, Jiwan Singh and Bhagwan Singh sons of Narain Singh. Later on 30th Baisakh 1978 BK (1921 A.D.), the said land was burdened with an additional charge of Rs. 900/- by one of the three mortgagors, namely, Sant Singh. In 1980 BK (1923 A.D.) Sant Singh and Bhagwan Singh, two of the original mortgagors raised a further charge of Rs. 1,718/- and at that point of time, however, only one khasra No. 898 measuring 27 bighas remained under mortgage with possession while three khasra Nos. were released by the mortgagees without payment of any amount. Thus, the plaintiff claimed that in 1980 BK the mortgage amount rose to Rs. 5,705/- and the mortgaged land remained only one khasra No. 898(27-0). The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid mortgage of the year 1980 BK was in fact a new mortgage in suppression of the earlier mortgages. It was further claimed that he along with Hazura Singh and Niranjan Singh purchased orally the mortgagee rights of the suit land from the successors-in-interest of Gokal Chand mortgagee in the year 2003 BK and a mutation in this regard having been sanctioned on May 10, 1957, the plaintiff and the aforesaid persons had become mortgagees of the suit land. The share of the plaintiff in the aforesaid transaction was one half. During the consolidation proceedings in the village Khasra No. 898 was converted into four khasra numbers i.e. 2847(6-5), 2848(6-5), 2858(6-5) and 2857(7-0) total measuring 25 bighas and 15 biswas. The plaintiff further claimed that there was a private arrangement between plaintiff and the aforesaid Hazura Singh and Niranjan Singh and, accordingly, the remaining half share belonging to Hazura Singh and Niranjan also came into the share of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that the date of mortgage with possession being June 25, 1923 and the limitation for redemption having expired on 1.1.1971, the plaintiff had become full and absolute owner of the suit land and the defendants had lost their right to redeem the land. Accordingly, the suit was filed claiming the declaration and also the possession of the suit land.

(3.) A replication was filed by the plaintiff. Besides reiterating the earlier pleas taken by him in the plaint, the plaintiff further claimed that since the Collector had no jurisdiction to order restitution of the mortgaged property covered under the 1938 Act, therefore, the order passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction.