BHADAR SINGH Vs. JUMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, dated 19-11-1992. By the said judgment, the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been accepted and reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely the Senior Sub-Judge, Lahaul and Spiti District at Kullu, dated 16-7-1988 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed, the said suit has been dismissed. hence, the present second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 Bighas and 12 Biswas to the extent of 1/2 share i.e. 4 Bighas and 6 Biswas by way of adverse and hostile possession, matured into title, to the knowledge of the defendant-respondent and the order of the Tehsildar, Kullu, dated 27-1-1986 is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Relief of declaration was also claimed to the effect that right of redemption of the defendant-respondent had been foreclosed by the lapse of 30 years period of limitation prior to filing of the application for redemption in the Court of Tehsildar, Kullu. Permanent prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also prayed for in the suit by the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, defendant Smt. Jumi was owner of Khasra Nos. 1575, 1359 and 1484, measuring 8 Bighas and 12 Biswas to the extent of 1/2 share, measuring 4-6-0 Bighas. She mortgaged her whole share in the suit land to the father of the plaintiff by the name of Tandu. This mortgage was with possession for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and in consequence thereof, a mortgage deed was also executed on 8-1-1951 registered on the next day i.e. 9-1-1951. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that possession of the suit land was also delivered to his father Tandu (since deceased), but the defendant paid mortgage money of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff's father in the year 1952. But, however, the possession of the suit land was not returned to the defendant, thus its possession by the plaintiff's father remained open, hostile and adverse since the year 1952. After his father's death, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit land and has been in adverse possession thereof which has ripened into his valid title due to the efflux of time i.e. 12 years from the date of payment of mortgage money by the defendant.