AJUDHIA PRASAD Vs. MAMUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1983 passed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the suit land by prescription has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1981 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record.

(3.) IN brief, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of three-fourth share on the ground that the mortgage had not been got redeemed by the defendants within the prescribed period of 30 years. According to them, after the death of Devtia, the original mortgagor, who died issueless the mortgagor rights were purchased by one Boga, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. After his death the defendants stepped into his shoes. According to them, the land could be got redeemed only upto 31.12.1970, and the defendants had failed to get the mortgage redeemed by the prescribed date of limitation. Both the courts below held that the plaintiffs had become owners by prescription as the suit land had not been got redeemed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that during the pendency of the suit Siri Ram, one of the plaintiffs, had died, and his legal representatives had not been brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation. On this basis, it was held that as the suit land was indivisible, the suit could not abate only qua the share of Siri Ram deceased, rather the suit as a whole would abate. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. Now the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal on impugn the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1983 passed by the lower appellate Court.