GANESH DASS Vs. KULDEEP RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISHER Dass Predecessor -in -interest of the respondents/Plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession against the appellants/defendants on the plea that plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop, which his father Ram Chand had purchased from its erstwhile owner Faquiru by virtue of a Sale -Deed dated 17th of K.ik 1966 BK, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 99/ -. To prove the title plaintiffs produced the original Sale Deed with his suit with a sanction for re -building of the same granted by Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Basohli dated 13.08.1969. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants with their predecessor -in -interest came in possession of the suit shop on 18.07.1970 by virtue of an un -registered mortgage deed duly executed in consideration of Rs. 500/ - by the plaintiff in their favour. An attested true copy of the Register of Petition Writer, the scribe of the mortgage deed, was also produced with the suit. The marginal witness was Dina Nath. At the time of filing the suit, the scribe and marginal witness of the mortgage deed had admittedly expired. Through the suit the plaintiff prayed for decree of possession by redemption of the mortgage.

(2.) THE defendants for contesting the suit inter alia took up the defence that the predecessor -in -interest of he defendants was infact the owner of the suit shop and it was he who had constructed the same about 50 years before. The Sale Deed, on which the plaintiff was basing his title being unregistered, does not confer any title on the father of the plaintiff nor the building permission could confer any title upon him. Regarding mortgage deed it was contended that the same, not having been produced in original, not being registered and stamped, is not admissible in evidence. Jurisdiction of the trial court and payment of court fee was also questioned.

(3.) LEARNED trial court by its judgment dated 30.07.1992 decided issue No. 1 alone in favour of the plaintiff and did not address issue No. 2, on the basis of the finding on issue No. 1, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.