- (1.) Appellants/defendants 2 to 4 have filed the instant second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration and in alternative for possession by way of redemption/injunction was partly decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.8.2010 and findings affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2011.
(2.) Briefly stated the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for possession by way of redemption/injunction alleging therein that they were owners of agricultural land comprised in khewat no.448/402, khatoni/khata no.549/807, rect.no.169, kill no.4/2 (6-16) and khewat no.451, khatoni no.555, rect.no.169, killa no.6 (8-0) situated within the revenue estate of Village Pali, Tehsil and District Faridabad. It was alleged that previously Chet Ram, father of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff no.3 was owner of the suit land of his own share as well as share of his brother Mani Ram, as Mani Ram had died unmarried and issueless. After the death of Chet Ram on 1.7.2001, plaintiffs being the sons and wife of deceased Chet Ram succeeded his estate . It was further alleged that Chet Ram during his lifetime had mortgaged suit land bearing rect.no.169, killa no.4 (6-16) and killa no.6 (8-0) orally with possession to Birbal (defendant no.1) and Late Inder, father of defendants 2 and 3 in the year 1957 for an amount of Rs.1850/- and mutation no.1621 was sanctioned in this regard on 21.01.1963. After the death of Inder, defendants 2 and 3 being his only legal heirs succeeded the estate of Inder. It was alleged that the suit land was redeemed by Chet Ram in June 1993 on payment of Rs.1850/- and possession was also handed over to him. It was alleged that the mortgage as well as redemption was oral and that due to negligence of the parties the revenue record qua implementing redemption could not be got corrected and as such revenue entries still existed in favour of defendants showing them mortgagees in possession of the land in dispute. It was further the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that defendant no.1 Birbal had created a second mortgage in favour of defendant no.4, who is none else but son of defendant no.2 and nephew of defendant no.3 vide Vasika no.8317 dated 8.12.1989 for his full share against mortgage amount of Rs.925/-. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they asked defendants to get the revenue record corrected but defendants refused to do so and threatened to alienate the suit land.
(3.) Hence the suit for declaration. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that in case redemption was not proved then they were entitled to get the said land redeemed on payment of Rs.1850/- or such other amount as determined by the court.;