Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.)THE defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Court whereby suit for possession by way of redemption of House No. 100/3 situated in Ucha Vehra Nalla Road, Patiala measuring 121 square yard, was decreed.
(2.)THE Plaintiff sought such decree alleging in the plaint that he is owner of the aforesaid house and on 1.10.1982, he mortgaged the same with the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/ -. An agreement in this respect was executed between the parties. On 18.7.1988, the plaintiff repaid Rs. 1,000/ - out of the mortgage sum against a receipt executed and signed by the defendant and on 26.6.1990, another sum of Rs. 500/ - was repaid to the defendant out of the mortgagee sum against receipt executed. Thus the plaintiff sought that the property be redeemed on payment of balance amount of Rs. 500/ - as mortgage sum.
The defendant denied that the property was ever mortgaged. It was asserted that the mortgage deed was not got registered by the plaintiff. However, the defendant asserted that he is in possession of the property since June, 1956 as its owner. The defendant has been in the continuous, physical, unbroken, hostile possession of the property in question and thus, is in adverse possession of the same. It was also asserted that the plaintiff is son of the Sister of the defendant and that the defendant is an illiterate person and can just sign in broken English. It was alleged that the payment of Rs. 1,000/ - on 18,7.1988 was not out of the alleged mortgage amount, but the same was a part payment of the loan of Rs. 2,000/ - taken by the plaintiff. In respect of receipt dated 26.6.1990, it was alleged that the defendant signed the receipt in good faith and that the contents of the receipt were never read over to the defendant.

(3.)ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of redemption of house in dispute as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether defendant is owner in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD

4(a) Whether the agreement dated 1.10.1982 alleged by the plaintiff, is a result of fraud and misrepresentation played by the plaintiff on the defendant as alleged in para No. 2 of the written statement? If so, its effect? OPD