KARNAIL SINGH Vs. GHICHAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karnail Singh was defendant No.1 in the trial Court and he has filed the present R.S.A. which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.3.1984 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1981 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class Bhatinda, who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 67 and passed a preliminary decree for possession by way of redemption of the mortgaged land measuring 103 kanals 4 marlas, in dispute on payment of Rs. 4300.00 against defendant No.1, Karnail Singh. It was further directed by the trial Court that the plaintiffs would deposit this amount in the Court within three months from the date of decree and after the expiry of this period they will be entitled to the possession of the land in dispute on the preparation of the final decree.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Ghichar Singh and 66 others filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgaged land measuring 103 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Maur Kalana, fully described in the, head note of the plaint on payment of Rs. 4300.00 and the case set up by the plaintiffs was that land measuring 54 bighas 5 biswas in lieu of which the land in dispute was allotted at the time of the consolidation was mortgaged with possession for a sum of Rs. 4300.00 in favour of Pakhar Singh of village Maur Kalan who further mortgaged the same with possession in favour of Karnail Singh defendant No.1 through two separate transactions i.e. ⅓rd share for Rs. 1500.00 for which mutation No. 6493 dated 3.9.1954 was sanctioned and remaining ⅔rd share for Rs. 2800.00 for which mutation No. 7071 dated 6.7.1961 was sanctioned. As such there existed a relationship of mortgaged and mortgagor between the plaintiffs, defendants No.2 to 33 who had not joined as co-plaintiffs in the filing of the suit and defendant No.1 Karnail Singh. The latter was repeatedly requested to redeem the land in dispute on receipt of Rs. 4300.00 and to deliver the possession of the same, but he was not agreeing, hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by Karnail Singh Defendant No. 1. He admitted that pre-consolidation land was under mortgage with possession with Pakhar Singh but he has denied for want of knowledge the assertion that the land in dispute has been allotted in lieu of pre-consolidation land under mortgage. Defendant No.1 also admitted the mortgage of the land in dispute in his favour of Pakhar Singh through two transaction in question but has pleaded that he has already become the owner of the land. Defendant No.1 also denied the rights of the plaintiffs to get the land redeemed. He raised legal objections that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that they have lost the right of redemption. It was also pleaded by defendant No.1 that application was filed by the plaintiffs before the Collector for the redemption of the land and the said application was dismissed on 30.8.1972 and as such the present suit which has been instituted on 31.1.1979 is barred by time. Defendant No.1 also took the stand that the land in dispute has not been correctly described; that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; that plaintiff No. 59 had already expired even prior to the institution of the suit and as such it was not maintainable.