ISHAR AND BHAGTA Vs. SMT. RAO ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by Ishar and Bhagta has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra, reversing on appeal the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Una whereby a suit filed by Dalip Singh and others for possession was dismissed. The dispute related to 1 kanal and 12 marlas of land comprised in Khasra numbers described in the jamabandi for the year 1956 -57 situate in village Dehlan of Tehsil Una. The Plaintiffs Dalip and others filed a suit for possession with the allegations that their ancestor Mohan had mortgaged the disputed land along with some other area in 1913 -14 to Bhupa and Sidhu. Subsequently in the year 1920 Mohan again mortgaged the said land to Ram Rakha and Hukma predecessor -in -title of the Defendants. The two mortgagees Ram Rakha and Hukma redeemed the first mortgage in favour of Bhupa and Sidhu. Rattni widow of Banta Singh predecessor -in -title of the Plaintiffs gifted her share of equity of redemption in March, 1967 in favour of Plaintiffs 4 to 6. Finally in June, 1967, the Plaintiffs 4 to 6 along with the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 redeemed the entire mortgage which existed in favour of Ram Rakha and Hukma. In this manner the Plaintiffs became entitled to resume possession, but according to their case, the disputed area of 1 kanal and 12 marlas was not vacated by Ishar and Bhagta who are first cousins to Hukma and Ram Rakha. As such the Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against these Defendants.

(2.) The defence of Ishar and Bhagta was that they were in possession in their own right from the last 100 years. They exhibited want of knowledge for the mortgage executed by Mohan, and Ram Rakha and Hukma being mortgagees. They based their title exclusively on long possession. It was rather claimed that both of them acquired adverse possession and the Plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession from them.

(3.) The learned trial Judge found in favour of the Defendants and he dismissed the suit. The decision was carried in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who disagreed with the finding on adverse possession. The suit has thus been decreed for possession. The Defendants have now conic up in second appeal.