LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-124

SURAT SINGH RATHEE Vs. UMED SINGH

Decided On May 12, 2009
Surat Singh Rathee Appellant
V/S
UMED SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 10.1.2007 and 18.4.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Sonepat (referred to hereinafter as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant were dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant had filed a suit for redemption against the defendants- respondents. It was pleaded that the father of the appellant was owner in possession of agricultural land, which was described in the plaint; that the said land was mortgaged by him in lieu of mortgage money of Rs.600/- on 28.6.1944 with Pema son of Kunja, grand-father of respondent nos. 1 and 2; that mutation no.1350 was sanctioned in that regard on 10.9.1944; that during the consolidation proceedings, land measuring 21 kanals 12 marlas had been allotted to the mortgage in lieu of the land mortgaged which was cultivated by him till 1962; that the father of the appellant had redeemed the land in dispute from the said Pema on payment of mortgage money of Rs.600/-; that thereafter, the father of the appellant mortgaged with possession the suit land along with his other land situated in the village, total measuring 68 kanals 12 marlas, for an amount of Rs.14,000/- with one Maman son of Ranpat vide registered conditional mortgage deed dated 6.4.1964/25.9.1964 and that father of the appellant could not get the said land redeemed within the stipulated period and the right of redemption was foreclosed.

(3.) THE appellant had also pleaded that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had got transferred land measuring 4 kanals 2 marlas out of the suit land in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 7 through a decree dated 23.3.1994 passed in Civil Suit No.37 of 1994 which was also illegal and not binding on his rights. He had averred that mortgage created on 28.6.1944 was a usufructuary mortgage and no period was prescribed for its redemption.