GURDEEP SINGH Vs. DERA GOSSIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of the suit land has been decreed.

(2.) IN the present case, in the year 1994, the plaintiffs-respondents filed suit for possession of the suit land measuring 54 bighas 19 biswas against the defendants-appellants on the basis of title stating therein that the defendants were in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land. In that suit, the defendants-appellants appeared and filed written statement taking the plea that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the plaintiffs to them for Rs. 90,000/- vide three mortgage deeds dated 20.02.1986 for Rs. 70,000/-, dated 17.02.1987 for Rs. 15,000/- and dated 15.09.1989 for Rs. 5,000/-. Due to the said plea taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the suit in order to file a redemption application before the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Collector for redemption of the alleged mortgage and also deposited Rs. 90,000/-. The defendants contested the said application and ultimately, the Collector dismissed the application vide order dated 24.03.1999, while holding that there was only agreement regarding mortgage of the land in dispute and those agreements are not registered one. As such, the defendants do not become mortgagees of the land in dispute. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the land redeemed from the defendants, because the same does not stand mortgaged with the defendants.

(3.) THE trial Court, without deciding the issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the suit land, dismissed the suit while holding that the same was not maintainable in the present form. It was held that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the same cause of action, on which the earlier suit was filed in the year 1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn without any permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action.