V.P.Gupta, J. - (1.)This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 9th Oct. 1980, passed by the Additional District Judge Kangra at Chamba, by which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and the judgment and decree, dated 24th Oct., 1979, passed by the Sub Judge, Dalhousie, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, was set aside,
(2.)The brief facts are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit seeking declaration that the order of the Collector, dated 30th Mar, 1972 (Exhibit PJ) is null, void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the disputed property. The plaintiff also prayed that he be granted a decree for possession of the disputed property, bearing khasra numbers 137, 147, 154, 158, 171 and 180 situate in Mohal Ghanetar, Pargana Kihar, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, without payment of any mortgage amount. It is alleged that one Beej Ram was the owner of the disputed property and he had mortgaged the same with Nanda (defendant No. 1) and Jai Dayal deceased (father of defendant Number 2 and husband of defendant No. 3) for Rs. 500/- by a mutation in the year 1956 (Exhibit PG). The plaintiff further alleged that the aforesaid Beej Ram gifted this property in his favour on 24th Mar., 1970, along with the property measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas of Khasra number 135 and the mutation regarding this gift was sanctioned on 27th Mar., 1970 (Exhibit PB). On these grounds the plaintiff has alleged that he is the owner of the disputed property and is entitled to get its possession by redemption from the defendants because there is a relationship of mortgagor and the mortgagee between the parties, It is also alleged that the defendants have realised profits which are many times more than the principal mortgage amount, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the land by redemption without payment of any mortgage money. This suit was filed in the court on 20th April, 1972.
(3.)Defendant No. 1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that he is the owner of the disputed land, because Beej Ram had, in fact, sold the disputed land to defendant No. 1 and that he is in possession of the same as an owner from 13th Chet Sambat 2012. Regarding khasra number 135 for which mutation had also been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 admitted that he is the owner of this land, measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas. Defendant No. 1 also denied the title of defendants 2 and 3 with respect to the disputed land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff has no right of redemption and the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed. Title of the plaintiff with respect to the disputed land and his right to redeem was denied by defendant No. 1.
;