BANI SINGH Vs. CHANDGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WAY back as in 1980 when this appeal was admitted so also today the contention of Mr. S.C. Kapoor, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is that even though the Bahi entry is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and may not be termed as document of mortgage, yet by virtue of a decision of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Tara Singh and another v. Lehna Singh and another, 1970 PLR 312, question of giving relief under section 68 would only arise when there is a mortgage, apart from the fact that it is not a valid mortgage. The following observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 7 of the judgment has been relied upon by Mr. Kapoor :-

(2.) IN view of what has been said above and in particular the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, noted above, the judgment under appeal is modified to say that the plaintiff-respondent herein would be entitled to decree for possession as ordered by the Courts below subject to payment of Rs. 3,300/-. Since the client of Mr. Vinod Sharma is not present in Court, he is unable to inform the Court till what time the amount could be deposited by him. In the situation mentioned above, this Court orders that the respondent, who as mentioned above, is plaintiff in the main lis would be entitled to execute the decree after deposit of Rs. 3,300/-. This appeal is, thus, partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court on 24.8.1979 and confirmed by the appellate Court on 21.10.1980 are modified to the extent mentioned above. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.