PANCHIA Vs. HARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS lis an appeal |by the defendant against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Alwar dated 24th October, 1950. It arises out of a suit for redemption brought by the plaintiff Sita against Mangla, Panchia and Govinda defendants. The property in dispute are 5 plots, namely 898 (area 16 biswas), 903 (area 7 biswas), 899 (area 12 biswas), 902 (area 9 biswas) and 900 (area 7 biswas) situated in Guwada Bhopawala in the Jagir of Saleta. It was alleged that in Svt. 1970-71 the plots in dispute were mortgaged with possession by the plaintiff's father Ramsahai to Raghunath, father of Mangla and Panchia, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and Isshria, father of Govinda, defendant No. 3, for a sum of Rs. 42/- and a mortgage deed was executed by the mortgagor. It was alleged that on 31st May, 1945 the plaintiff filed an application for redemption of the plots in dispute in the revenue court, but it was dismissed summarily by the order dated 18th October, 1945, It was prayed that a decree for redemption be given to the plaintiff in respect of the plots in dispute on payment of Rs. 42/- to the defendant. THIS suit was instituted on 31st July, 1946 in the court of Munsif, Thanagazi in the then State of Alwar.

(2.) THE defendants filed their written statements denying the factum of mortgage and the execution of any mortgage-deed. It was pleaded that the owner of the property in dispute was Jagirdar Ram Singh and the plaintiff's father had no right to mortgage.

(3.) I do not find any reason to exclude the evidence of the three witnesses produced by the plaintiff to prove the factum of mortgage and consideration for mortgage. Equally it can be said with respect to the date of the mortgage that it is not one of the terms of the mortgage-deed. From the evidence of these witnesses it is proved that the mortgage in question was made in about S. 1972-73. At the date of the suit 60 years had not elapsed from the date of the mortgage. No plea of limitation was also raised on behalf of the defendant. I have therefore no reason to interfere with the decrees of the lower courts for redemption of the property in suit on payment of Rs. 42/ -.