AMRIK SINGH Vs. DARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration of the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar (for short 'the SDM') to be null and void; has been dismissed and the appeal has also been dismissed.

(2.) For convenience, the parties would be referred herein as plaintiff and the defendant as they were described in the plaint.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the defendant had mortgaged his land in question vide mortgage deed No.418 dated 18.05.1999 registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Kharar. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, which has been specifically mentioned in the mortgage deed. It is further claimed that the suit land was not cultivable and was not even properly leveled for growing any kind of crop. Earlier, in the presence of Kuldip Singh son of Nasib Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Sampuran Singh, both the parties agreed that the plaintiff will level the land by incurring expenses and defendant would repay the amount spent on leveling the land after expiry of mortgage deed. The mortgage was extended for a period of further 10 years. It was further claimed that in the year 1999, plaintiff had spent an amount of Rs.90,000/- for leveling the land and handed over the photocopy of the receipts, issued by driver of the tractor, for leveling the land, to the defendant. In the month of March, 2008, the defendant demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- more as additional mortgage amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff handed over the said amount in the presence of Jasbir Singh. It was further claimed that in order to grab the mortgage amount, on 03.06.2009, the defendant illegally and forcibly, ploughed the land without informing the plaintiff and the plaintiff reported the matter to the police. However, the matter was compromised on 04.06.2009 in the Police Station, where the defendant agreed not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Still further, it was pleaded that the defendant had deposited less mortgaged amount in the office of SDM for redemption of the mortgage. The total amount, including additional amount, comes to Rs.3,10,000/-, whereas the amount deposited by the defendant was Rs.1,70,000/-. It was further pleaded that the extended period of mortgage was to expire on 16.09.2019. Therefore, the redemption proceedings initiated before the SDM were premature. On all these grounds, the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the SDM, permitting redemption of the mortgage, was sought to be declared as null and void.