SARDAR SINGH Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 11.10.1966.

(2.) Briefly the case of the plaintiffs is that Jagat Singh defendant resident of village Hardobandhoke, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, now in West Pakistan was owner of 71 Kanals 4 Marlas of land in that village and he mortgaged it with them with possession for Rs. 9,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 8.4.1987. The aforesaid land along with some other land was under usufructuary mortgage for an amount of Rs. 5000/- with Warsa Singh, Bahadur Singh, Dalip Singh sons of Lehna Singh and Kehar Singh son of Suba Singh residents of Bahalolpur. It was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the latter would deliver possession of the aforesaid land after getting it redeemed from the previous mortgagees. After a few months of the execution of the mortgage-deed, partition of the country took place and the parties migrated to India. The defendant was allotted 27 Standard Acres 1-1/4 Units of land in village Dachar, Tehsil and District Karnal, in lieu of his land in village Hardobandhoke.

(3.) The defendant made an application under Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Debt Adjustment Act) before the Tribunal on 10.4.1958, and the same was decided on 30.4.1959. It was ordered therein that the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover Rs. 6750/- from the defendant and that the debt would be discharged by payment of that amount by the defendant-mortgagor or from the usufruct of the land, which had been allotted to the mortgagor in lieu of the land which was under mortgage with them in Pakistan. The plaintiffs further averred that the defendant had obtained proprietary rights in respect of the land allotted to him in Punjab. They consequently filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute. The defendant contested the suit and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. He inter alia pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It is not necessary to refer to other pleas as they are not relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. Consequently, it dismissed the same. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal who affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. They have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge to this Court.