JAGDISH CHAND Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been heard with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties on the following substantial questions of law : - (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by redemption was within time ? (2) Whether defendants -appellants became owner by adverse possession after the period of 12 years when the mortgage came to an end ?

(2.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants -appellants against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.165/1982 by Additional District Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala dated December 27, 1985 whereby the judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs -res pondents by Sub -Judge 1st Class Kangra dated April 28, 1982 was set aside and suit for joint possession was decreed to the extent of 2/3rd share of the shop in dispute.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these : - "The plaintiffs -respondents filed civil suit No.12 of 1971 in the court of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Kangra for possession by redemption of mortgage of one shop situate in Tika Lidwar Majra Nagrota Baguan as detailed in the Head note of the plaint. It appears that in or about the year 1924 -25 the suit shop was mortgaged with possession by plaintiff No.1 Sham Lal and one Bholu predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 to Mangat Ram, predecessor -in -interest of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by an oral agreement in lieu of a debt of Rs. 500. At the time of the creation of mortgage the rent of the shop in question was Rs. 30 per annum. The case of the plaintiffs was that after settlement of the debt, the defendants were required to deliver back the possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiffs. Mangat Ram rented the shop after creation of mortgage and had been enjoying the amount of the rent. The shop in dispute presently is stated to be on rent with Ved Prakash (defendant No. 8). After the death of Mangat Ram, the defendants have been receiving the rent of the shop. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants were required to settle the accounts in respect of the debt in question. They have requested the defendants in October, 1970 to settle the accounts and to deliver back the possession of the shop, but the defendants declined to do so. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had served the defendants with a notice which the defendants had refused to receive. Consequently, the plaintiffs have to file a suit for passion by redemption. -