JEETO Vs. SANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the judgments of the Sub Judge Ist Class, Gurdaspur, dated 17.11.1978 as well as the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 29.2.1980 by which his suit as well as the appeal were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is a mortgagee of land measuring 19 kanals and that as the mortgage has not been redeemed and that mutation No. 1230 dated 19.2.1974 regarding the redemption of suit land is illegal and is not binding upon the mortgagee rights of the plaintiff. The trial Court held that as the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, therefore, mere suit for declaration without filing a suit for claiming consequential relief of possession was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also returned the same findings and upheld the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) HOWEVER , on the other hand, Mr. Rajinder Goyal, counsel for the respondents/defendants has argued that Jagir Singh DW6 has deposed in Court that he had never handed over the possession of the suit land to the appellant. It has further been deposed by DW6 that in fact he was never in possession of the suit land which had already been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel has also referred to the revenue entry Ex.D3 by which the possession of the respondents has been shown from 12.10.1976 to 19.10.1977 whereas the suit was filed on 21.10.1976. On the basis of the above, learned counsel submits that the appellant was not in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the fact that the appellant had filed an application for amendment of the suit wherein he had prayed for the relief of consequential relief of possession.