MUNSHI RAM Vs. RADHA KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Naraini mortgaged land, measuring 69 Kanals, 13 Mar-las, with Radha Kishan for Rs. 634/- on Phagun 7, 1994. Bk. She died leaving behind her daughter Smt. Bhagi. She (Smt. Bhagi) too died leaving behind her sons, viz. , Ved Parkash alias Baldev Raj (Respondent 2), Munshi Ram and Har Bhag-wan. and two daughters, viz. , Smt. Bhan Devi and Vidya Devi. Baldev Raj died issueless. He had sold his share in the land to Ranjodh Singh, Ranjit Singh, Ranbir Singh and Surjit Kaur. Har Bhag-wan died leaving behind his widow, Smt. Barma Devi, son Mahesh Chand, and daughters Narma Devi and Bimla Devi, who are respondents in this appeal. Radha Kishan had died during the pendency of this appeal and his adopted son Sukhdev Dass had been brought on record in his place.

(2.) ON August 9, 1966, Radha Kishan brought suit for possession of the aforesaid land, alleging that it had been mortgaged with him for more than sixty years back and he had been in its possession. It was averred that some of the mortgagors had made an application for redumption of the land under the provisions of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act II of 1913, which was dismissed by the Collector, Bhatinda. on December 19, 1963. and thereafter the suit brought by them under Section l2 of the said Act had been withdrawn and was consequently dismissed, and that the mortgagors had taken forcible possession of the land some time or about the year 1965. Ranjodh Singh, Ranjit Singh. Ranbir Singh and Surjit Kaur had, however, settled the matter with Radha Kishan and had redeemed land, measuring 17 Kanals 17 Marias, and Radha Kishan had compromised with them. The suit was contested by the defendants on various pleas and Munshi Ram. Bhan Devi and Vidya Devi laid a counter-claim for redemption of the land. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: 1. Whether the suit land had been under mortgage with the plaintiff for the last more than 60 years, if so, its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant filed an application for redemption of the suit land and was rejected on 19-12-1963 and the defendant filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute which was also dismissed on 1-5-1965. If so, its effect?

(3.) WHETHER the defendant withdrew the aforesaid suit with condition to file fresh suit on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs and as such is debarred from setting up the counter-claim for redemption ? OPP.