RAJ KUMAR Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff, second appeal whose suit for possession by way of redemption was decreed by the trial Court, but the said decree was modified in appeal to the extent that Suraj Bhan, defendant, shall not be dispossessed in execution of the decree and that he shall continue to hold the premises, in dispute, in his possession as a tenant.

(2.) SADHU Singh, defendant, was the owner of the shop, in dispute. He mortgaged the same with Gurdial Chand, defendant, on May 11, 1957. Later on, he sold the same to the plaintiffs on January 10, 1974. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on February 15, 1974 and Suraj Bhan was also impleaded as one of the defendants. The suit was mainly contested by him. He pleaded that he was tenant on the shop in dispute, prior to its mortgage by Sadhu Singh and on redemption, he was entitled to continue as a tenant. The trial Court after discussing the entire evidence and giving very cogent reasons came to conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence in support of the claim of the plaintiffs to prove that Suraj Bhan, defendant, was not inducted as a tenant by Sadhu Singh, as alleged. Consequently the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs had failed to rebut the evidence of Suraj Bhan, defendant, that he was a tenant on the shop, in dispute, prior to the creation of the mortgage, and consequently, modified the decree of the trial Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs.