NARINDER SINGH Vs. ANOOP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to arrive at a correct decision in this second appeal filed by the defendants, it is necessary to set out the facts not only in detail but also with precision.

(2.) Piare Lal defendant owned 16 Kanals 10 Marlas of land and he mortgaged it on 5.4.1963 to Narinder Singh and Santokh Singh defendants for Rs. 9,200/-. Afterwards on 12.9.1969, through another registered mortgage deed, Piare Lal mortgaged the suit land in favour of Anup Singh plaintiff for Rs. 16,000/- for a fixed term of ten years. As per terms of the subsequent mortgage deed, a sum of Rs. 9,200/- was left with the plaintiff out of the mortgage amount of Rs. 16,000/- for payment to the previous mortgagees namely Narinder Singh and Santokh Singh. However, before the expiry of the period of mortgage in favour of the defendants, Piare Lal sold the land in question along with some other land to Narinder Singh and Santokh Singh defendants for Rs. 44,000/- vide sale deed dated 11.6.1971. In the sale deed Ex. D. 1, it has been specifically mentioned that the land shall be got redeemed by Narinder Singh and Santokh Singh, vendees, after making payment of the mortgage money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants to accept the mortgage amount of Rs. 9,200/- and redeem the suit land in his favour and also requested them to put him in possession. The defendants did not agree. Consequently, the plaintiff moved an application under section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act before the Collector, Ajnala, seeking redemption of the suit land on payment of the mortgage amount but the same was dismissed on 17.12.1973. The plaintiff then filed a suit to get the order of the Collector set aside and also sought possession of the suit land through its redemption on payment of Rs. 9,200/- to the prior mortgagees. The defendants controverted the averments made in the plaint.

(3.) It is not necessary to advert to the several issues framed by the trial Court. The controversy in the Courts below really centered around the matter whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the land; if so, on what terms? The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by the lower appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit directed that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the suit land as a mortgagee under the terms of mortgage deed Ex. P.1, and the defendants Narinder Singh and Santokh Singh as owners of the suit land shall be entitled to get the suit land redeemed according to law from the plaintiff on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 6,800/- and recover back its possession. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have now come up in appeal.