YOG RAJ Vs. KULDIP RAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six Civil Ist Appeals and three Cross Appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned District Judge Jammu dated 25. 9. 2002 whereby six Civil suits filed by the respondent against the appellant have been decreed. BACKGROUND.

(2.) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF, Kuldip Raj Gupta, is the owner of the shop situated at City Chowk Jammu. He mortgaged the said shop with possession to the appellant-defendant, Yog Raj in April 1973 through a registered mortgage deed in consideration of Rs. 5000/- for a period of three years. The rental of the shop was fixed at Rs. 100/-P. M. to be paid by the defendant-appellant which was, however, equated with interest computed at Rs. 1000/-monthly to be accrued to the mortgagor-plaintiff on the said amount of Rs. 5000/ -. In this way actually nothing was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of rent of the shop during the period of mortgage. On 3. 11. 1993 the respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession of the shop against the appellant. The suit was compromised on 2. 12. 1983 in terms whereof it was decreed. Learned Sub-Registrar Jammu by his judgment dated 2. 12. 1983 passed the decree in the suit in the following terms:-

(3.) THE appellant did not hand over the possession back to the respondent in terms of the decree on 1. 1. 1989; the respondent filed an execution application seeking execution of the decree. However the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 294/1989 in this court in October 1989, challenging the compromise decree on the ground that the same is null and void and without jurisdiction, inoperative, inexecutable and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed consequential relief prohibitory in nature for restraining the respondent herein from executing the said decree and interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the said shop in any manner whatsoever. On the said suit being entertained and admitted this court ordered for the stay of the execution of the decree impugned dated 2. 12. 1983. The respondent herein filed his objections to the application of the appellant for grant of interim relief i. e. CMP No. 559/1989. A learned single Judge of this court after hearing the parties by order dated 27. 12. 1989 dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction and held the respondent entitled to execute the decree impugned. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the appellant went in appeal before the Division Bench and the Hon'ble division Bench also dismissed the appeal. The appellant then approached the Supreme court by way of Civil Appeal No. 1284/92 and the Hon'ble Supreme court by its order dated 8. 9. 1994 disposed of the appeal as follows:-