DHAN RAJ AND ORS. Vs. SATPAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein was dismissed and the counter -claim of the defendants was decreed and decree for possession of the property, mentioned in the headnote of the plaint, was passed in favour of the defendants. Brief facts of the case are that as per the amended plaint of the plaintiffs/appellants before the lower Court, the plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become the owner of the suit land measuring 20 kanals 2 marlas as the property has not been redeemed within the prescribed period of limitation. The plaintiffs/appellants claim that the disputed property was mortgaged by Ramji Dass and Radha Kishan sons of Nandoo with one Prabhu son of Kirpa Ram, which is reflected in Jamabandi for the year 1967. Later on, Radha Kishan died and vide mutation No. 296, Ramji Dass became the sole mortgagor and Prabhu continued to be the mortgagee. As per the mutation No. 340, Prabhu sold his mortgagee rights to Sant Ram son of Kanhiya, resident of village Chamar Heri in the year 1974 BK. In this way, Sant Ram became the mortgagee of the land. Ramji Dass (mortgagor) died and has been succeeded by the defendants. Sant Ram also died about 50 years ago, leaving behind three sons, namely, Shadi Ram, Chagli Ram and Amar Nath. Shadi Ram also died about 45 years ago and has been succeeded by Dhan Raj, Kesho Ram, Dev Raj and Norata Ram. Amar Nath died about 20 years ago and has been succeeded by his son Achhar Dass. Chagli Ram died about 17/18 years ago and has been succeeded by his only son Bachna (Bachna Ram). The limitation for redemption of the suit land has expired. Therefore, the plaintiffs/appellants have become the owner of the mortgaged property.

(2.) In the amended written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 through his legal representatives, it was denied that Ramji Dass and Radha Kishan had mortgaged the disputed property with Prabhu. It was also denied that Prabhu sold his mortgagee rights to Sant Ram. It was stated that the mutation of mortgage was sanctioned at the back of Ramji Dass and is not binding on him and after his death, his legal heirs. It was stated that the contesting defendant and earlier his father had been cultivating the land at village Chamaheri, Tehsil and District Patiala. The plaintiffs/appellants and their predecessors -in -interest had been cultivating the land at village Bathonian Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, with their mutual consent. The manipulation of the revenue record was done at the back of the contesting defendant and is incorrect. Therefore, prayer was made for grant of decree for recovery of possession in favour of defendant No. 1.

(3.) In replication, the plaintiffs/appellants reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. It was stated that the counter -claim was not within limitation.