SADHU RAM Vs. BIASO DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed by the appellants/defendants, against, the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby, it reversed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court, whereby, the latter Court, had, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the suit land was previously owned by one Amin Chand, which was in his possession, who mortgage the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 400/- and also delivered the possession vide mutation No.217 on 26.11.1963. In the year 1971 Amin Chand sold suit land in favour of Bhagat Ram to the extent of two shares, Rumal Singh to the extent of one share, both sons of Badri, vide mutation No.227 as is clear from the red entry in the remarks column of jamabandi for the year 1970-71. In the year 1981, Bhagto alias Bhagat Ram son of Badri sold Khasra No.283, measuring 14 Kanals 10 Marlas to the extent of 2/3rd share in favour of Gujjar Singh vide mutation No.297 decided on 22.10.1981. Shri Gujjar Singh sold Khasra No.283 to the extent of 2/3rd share in favour of Jahlu Ram s/o Shri Hira and the mutation No.316 regarding this transfer was sanctioned on 25.08.1984 and in this manner the defendants became the mortgagors in place of original mortgagor as would appear from the copy of jamabandi for the year 1975-76 in the remarks column. The suit land was mortgaged with possession as is clear from the copy of the mutation No.217 and jamabandi for the year 1970-71, but without any order or inquiry in the column of cultivation while preparing the jamabandi the revenue staff wrote "khud Kasht" but omitted the word 'Murthin' from the cultivation column and same entry was repeated in the subsequent jamabandies without any legal authority or order the competent Court. The mortgage is more than 35 years old and the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest did not redeem the same within time and now they have lost their right by limitation and consequently the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by afflux of time. Hence, the instant suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. The possession of the suit land is with Hiro, who is in cultivating possession of the suit land. On merits, it is admitted that Amin Chand was original owner of the suit land. It is denied that the suit land was mortgaged with possession to the plaintiff by Amin Chand for Rs. 400/-. The alleged mutation is false and is correct. The plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land as mortgagee. The possession remained with Hiro as tenant, who has become owner in possession of this land, by the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.