SHAM SINGH Vs. SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal, whose suit for possession was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the land measuring 3 Kanals and 16 Marals on the ground that previously the suit land consisted of Khasra Nos. 498, 958 and 963 and the same were owned by the plaintiff, which was later on mortgaged with Kirpa Ram son of Man Singh for Rs. 70/- vide mortgage deed dated 17th Phagun, Sammat, 1973. Thereafter the suit land was further mortgaged by the mortgagees to the father of defendant No. 1, Atma Ram, for Rs. 70, vide mortgage deed-dated 6th Har, Sammat, 1978. The subsequent mortgage was created with a stipulation that the suit land shall stand redeemed on payment of Rs. 70/- to the subsequent mortgagees. It was pleaded that, vide receipt dated 25.6.1948 (Exhibit P.2), the plaintiff paid Rs. 70/- to Atma Ram, father of defendant No. 1, who was the subsequent mortgagee, and got redeemed the suit land. However, mutation of the redemption was not effected and Kapoor Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 2 to 6, usurped the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff who lived in Malaya, Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 10.1.1969. The defendant contested the suit on the plea that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land and that the particulars of the mortgage have not been given. According to the defendants, they are in possession of the suit land as owners and they have become owners by adverse possession. The trial Court found that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. It was further found that the plaintiff has proved by cogent evidence that the subsequent mortgage was created by the predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and Gruditta in favour of Atma Ram, which was later on got redeemed by the plaintiff, vide receipt Exhibit P-2 dated 26.6.1948. The plea of the defendants that they have become owners by adverse possession was negatived as the defendants failed to produce any evidence to that effect. The trial Court also found that the suit even for redemption was within time. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

(3.) In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land comprising Khasra No. 498 because in the plaint he claimed ownership of Khasra No. 498. It was also held that mortgagee rights were not sold by the predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 in favour of Atma Ram and that the mortgage was not got redeemed by the plaintiff as claimed. However, the finding of the trial Court that the defendants have not become owners by adverse possession was maintained. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.