LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-100

ASS MOHAMMAD Vs. MOHAMMAD HANIF

Decided On September 25, 2008
Ass Mohammad Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD HANIF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING unsuccessful before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2002 passed by the lower appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 15.9.1999 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was mortgagee in possession of the agricultural land comprising in khewat No. 54 khata No. 85, rectangle No. 65, killa No. 5/1 measuring 4 kanals 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Fatehpur Taga (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") as the same was initially mortgaged with possession by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants with his predecessors-in-interest. It was pleaded that the suit land was not got redeemed by the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest and the period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage had already expired and the mortgagee rights of the plaintiff had matured into proprietory rights with the passage of time. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to be recorded as absolute owner in possession of the suit land by way of a mutation in the revenue records and the defendants had no right, title or interest in the same. The plaintiff made several requests to the defendants to admit his claim but they refused to do so and that gave rise to the filing of the suit seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) THE trial court vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit land was got redeemed by defendant No. 2 on payment of the redemption money to the plaintiff vide receipt Ex.D1 and the revenue record showing the plaintiff as mortgagee-in-possession was liable to be corrected. Further, it was observed that defendant No. 1 had become owner in possession of the suit land by way of preemption. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2002 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.