(1.) This order will dispose of six regular second appeals bearing nos. 49 of 2007, 4101 of 2006, 4257 of 2006, 351 of 2007, 735 of 2007 and 741 of 2007.
(2.) RSA nos. 49 of 2007, 4101 of 2006 and 4257 of 2006 are plaintiffs' second appeals directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 17.10.2003 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2006 whereas RSA nos. 351 of 2007, 735 of 2007 and 741 of 2007 are defendants' second appeals directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 17.10.2003 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2006.
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit and filed a joint written statement and also a counter claim. In the written statement they admitted that the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Kura and Nehala but claimed that they have sold the land in dispute to them for a valuable consideration and after the sale they are the owners in possession of the same and that the appellants and their predecessor in interest were neither the mortgagees and nor they have possession of the property in question. It was further pleaded that in the event of the plaintiffs-appellants being able to prove that the land in dispute was under mortgage then in that eventuality their right to redemption does not come to an end as the plaintiffs-appellants and their predecessor in interest never remained in possession of the suit land for a statutory period provided by law prior to 1963 and therefore the claim of the plaintiffs was not maintainable. It was denied that Partap Singh had ever remained tenant under the plaintiffs and he had paid batai to them. It was further pleaded that the revenue entries which show the column of possession in favour of the appellants is result of collusion. In the counter claim they pleaded that in the event of the plaintiffs succeeding in proving that the land in dispute was actually mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 115/- in that eventuality they may be permitted to deposit the amount to redeem the mortgage.