BACHITTAR SINGH Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is unsuccessful defendant's regular second appeal against judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, Brij Lal, now represented by his legal representatives filed a suit for declaration that he has become owner of the suit land as right of redemption stands extinguished with a further declaration that mortgage deed dated 14. 6. 1971 executed by defendant Bachittar Singh in favour of Sewa Singh was not binding on the plaintiff as Bachittar Singh had no right or title to execute the mortgage deed after the extinguishment of his rights in the suit property.

(3.) PARTIES were permitted to adduce evidence in support of the pleas raised. The trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced came to the' conclusion that Bishna father of defendant No. 1, mortgaged the suit land in favour of Raunak Raml the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1,654.00, which fact finds recorded in the copy of jamabandi for the year Samat 1974-75 (B. K. ). In subsequent entries in revenue record too this entry stands incorporated whereas the amount of mortgage is recorded as Rs. 1,750/ -. On the death of Raunak Ram mutation was sanctioned in favour of Charanji Lal son of Tilku on 2. 4. 1956 and on the death of Charanji Lal mutation No. 1976 was sanctioned in favour of Brij Lal. In copies of jamabandi for the year 1969-70, exhibit P-14, Brij Lal is shown as mortgagee in place of his father Charanji Lal. It is on the basis of these entries in revenue record that plaintiff laid claim to the suit property stating that as the land mortgaged has not been redeemed within the prescribed period of limitation, the defendant's right to, get it redeemed stands extinguished. According to the plaintiff, in view of the Limitation Act of 1963 suit could only be filed by January 1,1971 and not later. This main issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Resultantly, the Court held that subsequently executed mortgage deed in favour of Sewa Singh-defendant on 14. 6. 1971 does not confer any right upon him nor it affects in any manner the rights of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed holding that the plaintiffs have become owners-in-possession of the suit land and that right of redemption stands extinguished. It was further held that mortgage deed dated 14. 6. 1971 in favour of Sewa Singh-defendant is without any right or title and as such does not bind the plaintiffs.