TEKA Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this case is the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for possession by way of redemption of agricultural land as detailed in the plaint, was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Karnal, vide judgement and decree dated 23.12.1986 and appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgement and decree dated 30.07.1988.

(2.) Present appeal has been filed challenging both the said judgements and decrees.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that plaintiff-Teka, now represented by his legal representative, filed a suit for redemption of the suit land, with the pleadings that the plaintiff, Munshi, Panna-defendant no.11 and defendants no.12 to 16, were owners of agricultural land as detailed in the plaint. Munshi, the brother of the plaintiff was stated to be the owner of the property to the extent of 1/4th share. Land measuring 8 Kanal being 1/4th share of the total land measuring 32 Kanals as detailed in the plaint was stated to be mortgaged with possession by Munshi with Paras Ram, father of defendants no.4 to 9 and husband of defendant no.10. Mutation no. 1440 in this respect was sanctioned on 20.07.1967. Suit land was statedly mortgaged for a sum of Rs.650/-. It is stated that Munshi (since deceased) had paid the mortgage amount, but mutation of redemption was not sanctioned and the suit land continued to be reflected to be under mortgage with Paras Ram in the revenue records. Plaintiff claimed to have been declared the owner of the suit land vide a Civil Court decree dated 15.09.1982, wherein Munshi admitted the transfer of the suit land in favour of plaintiff-Teka by way of a family settlement. It is further pleaded that defendants no.1 to 3 merely with a view to defeat the right of redemption of the plaintiff took possession of the suit land in collusion with defendants no.4 to 10. Plaintiff claimed to be entitled to possession by way of redemption of the suit land including the actual possession of Rect. no. 27 Khasra No. 2 (8-0) on payment of Rs.650/-. As the defendants did not accede to his request, the suit was filed.