DAYA RAM Vs. MOJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8, 11 and 12 (defendant-appellants) challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/3/2019 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 2/12/2023 passed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of agricultural land measuring 15 Kanals 14 Marlas as fully described in the plaint on payment of Rs.100.00. It was averred in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had mortgaged the suit land with possession about 100 yeas ago for a consideration of Rs.100.00. The interest and mesne profits of the land was to be adjusted against each other and deemed to be equal. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It was further averred that the consolidation proceedings took place in village Jondhan Khurd in the year 1960-61 and the mortgaged suit land was also partitioned during the consolidation and the suit land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and other co-owners in lieu of old khasra numbers. It was further contended that the defendants were in possession of the suit land as mortgagees and they have been asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 regarding the suit land, however, they refused to do so. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) The defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 not approaching the Court with clean hands. It was contended that there is no connection inter se between the persons who allegedly created the mortgage and the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It was further the case set up that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had purchased the land for a sale consideration of Rs.95.00 against receipt, however, the receipt was lost. It was also denied that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff-respondent No.1 were the owners of the suit land. The mortgage money of Rs.100.00 was also denied. Replication was not filed.