KAPUR SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mehanga Ram took a loan of Rs. 11,411.13 from the Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and to secure the loan, mortgaged his agricultural land to the Bank by a mortgage deed dated 4.7.1958. Since Mehanga Ram was a member of the Society and was its Secretary, the matter of recovery of loan was taken up by the Bank under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by referring the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator gave an award in favour of the Bank for the recovery of Rs. 22,765.91. When the mortgagor did not repay the amount, the Banktook out execution. In execution the mortgaged property was put to sale. On 8.2.1974, the mortgagee rights were purchased by Kapur Singh and Tehal Singh for Rs. 31,000/-. Before the purchase, the two auction purchasers, who were tenants, were in occupation of the land along with Paramjit Singh. Later on, the sale certificate was granted to the auction purchasers. On 15.5.1975 vide Exhibit P.1, Mehanga Ram sold 32 Kanals of land out of the aforesaid land to Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh for Rs. 36,225/-. On 4.9.1975, Karail Singh and Jarnail Singh sued Kapur Singh and Tehal Singh seeking redemption of the mortgage. Mehanga Ram was also joined in the suit as a plaintiff. The defendants raised several pleas and the important ones to be noticed are that they were in occupation of the land in dispute as tenants and even if redemption was to be allowed, their tenancy rights were to survive and a decree for actual possession by way of redemption could not be granted.

(2.) On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 4.8.1976 held that the defendants were not tenants; that by the court- sale only mortgagee rights were sold and consequently granted a preliminary decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 31,000/-. Against the aforesaid decree, the defendants have come to this Court in R.F.A. No. 962 of 1976.