JAGDISHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS predecessor, Beli Ram, hereinafter referred io as plaintiff or deceased plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration that he had acquired title to land measuring 0 -11 -64 hectares, bearing Khasra Nos. 264, 262, 263 and 263/1 , situate in Moha! Sunehar, Mouza Kohala, Tehsi! Kangra, as per entries in the jamabandi for the year 1978 -79, on account of the respondent -defendants (State of H.P.) failure to get the mortgage in respect of the said land redeemed within the time prescribed by law for the purpose. It was alleged that the suit land had been mortgaged to late Shri Ranjha Ram, the father of the deceased plaintiff Beli Ram, in the year 1901 -02. The mortgage was alleged to be with possession. It was stated that the suit land was initially Shamlat land and it vested in the Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands ( ) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act, and that after the coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Himachal Act the land vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the land as a mortgagee and his mortgage was saved by the Punjab Act. It was alleged that the mortgage having not been redeemed within the time prescribed for redemption, the plaintiff had become owner by afflux of time. Beli Ram died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives, some of whom are the present plaintiffs, were brought on record. They amended the plaint. They dropped the relief of declaration that they had become owners by the afflux of time, but persisted in the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the State of H.P. i.e. the respondent -defendant, from interfering in their possession.

(2.) SUIT was contested by the respondent -defendant. It was alleged that at no point of time the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land. Plea of mortgage, as set up by the plaintiffs, was controverted. Various preliminary objections were also raised.

(3.) RESPONDENT -defendant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the document regarding creation of mortgage having not been produced and the entries in the revenue papers being the secondary evidence of mortgage and no permission of the Court having been obtained for leading secondary evidence, it could not be said that the plea of mortgage, as set up by the plaintiffs, stood proved. With this finding, the learned District Judge accepted the appeal and reversed the findings of the trial Court.