NATHU Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1-Nathu is in appeal. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of declaration that they are owner of the suit land and also prayed for decree of possession.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs Balwant son of Chhote, the common ancestor of the parties was owner of land. After death of Balwant, Hoshiar Singh father of defendants, Nathu-plaintiff No.1 and Smt.Umed Kaur-plaintiff No.2 succeeded to the estate of Balwant in equal shares. Mutation bearing No.66 dtd. 8/2/1945 was sanctioned in their favour. Nathu-plaintiff No.1 who was mortgagee in possession of the entire land became mortgager as well as mortgagee to the extent of his share. The rights merged. Mutation No.97 was sanctioned by Revenue Authorities on 29/1/1947 in respect of entire land and plaintiff No.1 became co-owner in the entire land to the extent of 1/3rd share free from all encumbrances. In family settlement, plaintiff No.1 relinquished his rights qua the remaining land as well. Thus the land vested in all the co-sharers without there being any charge. Plaintiff No.2-Umed Kaur filed suit bearing Civil Suit No.241 titled as 'Umed Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh'. The same was compromised. Plaintiff No.2 was declared to be absolute owner of her share. Plaintiff No.2 in compromise gave 1 killa bearing Rectangle No.23 to Pritam Singh. Partnership proceedings were carried out by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 24/10/1988. During partition proceedings, defendants were incorporated as mortgagee to the extent of 2/9 share. It was claimed that plaintiff No.1 was mortgagee to the extent of entire land. He retained his 1/6th share and only sold 5/6 share of plaintiff No.2 to Pritam Singh. There being no charge on the share of plaintiff No.1 and the share qua plaintiff No.2 having got redeemed vide Civil Court judgment dtd. 26/4/1974 entries in revenue record of defendants being mortgagee along with Pritam Singh are wrong, illegal and unlawful.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants denying the claim of the plaintiffs. As per the defendants they have become owner by lapse of time as the plaintiffs have lost their right to redeem the land by efflux of time.