- (1.) Both the appeals are connected. RSA No.624 of 1980 is at the instance of the defendants against whom a suit for declaration has been decreed in reversal of the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's action. RSA No.1285 of 1980 is at instance of the plaintiff whose suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court and in an appeal, the trial Court's judgment was again confirmed. The plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed, is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff in Civil Suit No.188 of 1973 is Munshi Ram, who claimed that the property of an extent of 224 kanals and 14 marlas comprised in Khewat and khatauni Nos.2/2 and 2/2/1 situate in Village Galoli, tehsil Jagadhri with specific Rectangle numbers, namely, 23, 24, 25, 33 and 34 belonged originally to the plaintiff's predecessor and had been the subject of two mortgages, namely, a mortgage in respect of khatta No.2 of an extent of 163 bighas and 13 biswas in favour of one Murali and the same being the subject of a sub mortgage in favour of Bhagirthi, the remaining half share already being in the ownership of the mortgagee herself. The appellant in RSA No.1285 of 1980 is the plaintiff, Ram Krishan who has sought for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the land, claiming the property on the same averments as the plaintiff in the other case as a representative in interest. The only difference is that the suit and appeal were both dismissed and the appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. The narration shall be from the facts which are the subject of adjudication in RSA 624 of 1980.
(2.) The plaintiff would seek for a declaration on the basis that the mortgages had been redeemed in the year 1930 and held in the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff would also contend that he had prescribed title to the property by adverse possession. There are defendants 1 to 28 (defendants 1 to 40 in the other suit) and there is no specific detail as to the respective claims of the defendants and how they have been joined together in the suit. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title to the property and further denied that there was any order by the Collector granting redemption in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff had filed an application in the year 1954 before the Collector for redemption but it was dismissed on 31.12.1954. The dismissal had been on the basis that the case involved issues of title and, therefore, only the remedy must be before the Civil Court. The contention of the defendants was that the very fact that the defendants had filed an application for redemption before the Collector in the year 1954 would show that the alleged redemption in the year 1930 could not be correct. According to the defendants, there would have been no such necessity to apply for redemption afresh in the year 1954 if there had been a redemption ordered in the year 1930.
(3.) Before the trial Court, two documents had been put in evidence on the side of the plaintiff, namely, Ex.P-1 purported to the order of the Collector dated 11.03.1930 granting a right of possession to the plaintiff, and Ex.P-2 a copy of roznamcha dated 19.04.1930. The trial Court had observed that Ex.P-1 purported to be an extract of a register containing the details of the order which made reference to the fact that the original file had been destroyed on 31.05.1945. The order purported to make a reference to the entitlement of the mortgagor to take actual possession of the property after harvesting the rabi crop of 1930. The admissibility of the two documents had put to test before the trial Court and also made an issue of law in the appeals.;