SALWANT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants. They have challenged the judgment and decree dated February 8, 1990 passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff -respondent Dalip Singh against the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1988 passed by the learned trial Court was allowed and consequently his suit was decreed, after modification of decree of the trial Court,

(2.) Plaintiff, Dalip Singh, had filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas, on payment of Rs. 7500/ - or such other amount as may be determined by the Court. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he had mortgaged the aforesaid land vide mortgage deed dated April 15, 1991 with defendant No. l Sal -want Singh for an amount of Rs. 7500/ -. It was further claimed that possession of the aforesaid mortgage land was delivered to the mortgagee and no interest was payable on the mortgaged amount as the income of the mortgaged land was to be appropriated by the mortgagee. The aforesaid mortgage ,was redeemable at any time in the month of Baisakh after four years from the date of the mortgage. The plaintiff claimed that he had requested defendant No. l, Salwant Singh, to redeem the land and to deliver the possession thereof on receipt of amount of Rs. 7500/ - but defendant No. l refused to do so. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that defendants No. 2 to 5 were claiming to have purchased the suit land from some other co -sharers of the plaintiff, which assertion of the said defendants, according to the plaintiff, was wrong incorrect and false. The plaintiff also deemed the legality and validity of any such sale deed in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5. It was claimed by him that the said co -sharers were not in possession of the suit land, as such they were not competent to alienate the same, in any manner. Consequently, the sale deed by co -sharers in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5 was claimed to be illegal and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that defendants No.2 to 5 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and have got the sale deed executed in their favour with a view to prolong his possession even after redemption. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that defendants No.2 to 5 are also bound to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on its redemption.

(3.) Defendants appeared and contested the suit. Two separate written statements were filed by defendant No. l and defendants No.2 to 5.