SH. PARAS RAM Vs. SH. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs having lost in both the Courts below have assailed judgment, decree dated 14.10.2004, passed by learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2002, affirming judgment, decree dated 24.11.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. RBT 207/98/95.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that appellants had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents regarding land comprised in khasra Nos. 215, 232, 487, 530, 573 and 575, measuring 8 kanals 14 marlas vide jamabandi for the years 1993- 1994, situated in Tikka Loharli, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar ( for short suit land). The pleaded case of the appellants is that in the jamabandi 1993-1994, they have been shown mortgagees with possession, earlier predecessors-in-interest of appellants were mortgagees with possession. As per appellants, the suit land was mortgaged with possession vide mutation No.257 dated 26.5.1895 by Nihalu in favour of Chaudhary half share and Gurmukh, Ganesha half share. The owners vide mutation No.67 dated 4.2.1924 sold the suit land and other land in favour of Sibu, Chuhru, Birju, Gaddi, Munshi and Kanshi predecessors-in-interest of respondents. Thus, respondents became mortgagors.

(3.) THE suit was contested by respondents by filing joint written statement in which several preliminary objections, such as cause of action, maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been denied that the appellants are owners. The revenue entry recorded during consolidation is wrong. The suit is not maintainable in view of another suit Arjun Singh vs. Sukh Ram. On merits, it has been stated that respondents are in possession. The appellants or their predecessors were never mortgagees. They were mortgagors and due to lapse of time the respondents have become owners of the suit land. The suit land was mortgaged with respondents. The sale in favour of respondents of the suit land as alleged by appellants has been denied. It has been pleaded that respondents are continuing in possession and have become owners by lapse of time. The predecessors-in-interest of appellants were mortgagors.