RAMLAL Vs. CHETU ALIAS CHET RAM
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHETU ALIAS CHET RAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether the possession of the appellant has ripened into ownership by efflux of time.
(2.) IT appears that Chetu and Telu, who were co-owners in a certain plot of land situate in the erstwhile State of Patiala mortgaged the property with one Raja Ram for a sum of Rs. 433/8/. On the 4th Baisakh 1977 Bk. Daulat Ram and Narain Das sons of Raja Ram mortgagee sold their mortgagee rights to Chhaju, father of Ram chand defendant No. 2. On the 7th Chet 1982 Bk. Chetu created a further mortgage in favour of Benarsi Das and others defendant No. 3. It appears that in the year 1987 Bk. one Harnama, father of Ram Lal and others, hereinafter referred to as the defendants entered upon the land as a tenant of ram Chand. On the death of Telu, Chetu acquired the proprietary rights which had vested in his co-owner and in the year 2002, he paid off both the first and the second mortgagees and redeemed the mortgages. He endeavoured to obtain possession of the property but having failed to achieve his object he brought the suit for possession out of which this appeal has arisen. The mortgagees, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, accepted the plaintiff's claim but the defendants who were in actual physical possession of the land resisted the suit. They stated that they had been in actual physical possession of the property for a period exceeding 25 years and that the adverse possession of the land maintained for the statutory period had vested them with title thereto.
(3.) THE trial Court held that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession against the mortgagees and not against the mortgagor who was out of possession, that by holding the land adversely to the mortgagees for the statutory period the d'efendant had acquired the mortgagee rights, that the mortgagor had no power to be put in possession of the property without getting the property redeemed from him and that the plaintiff having failed to prove the date of the original mortgage the suit was barred by time. In this view of the case the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Court that the defendant's possession was adverse to the mortgages but was unable to endorse the view that the mortgagee was not at liberty to obtain possession of the property even by paying the mortgage money to the defendant. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.