- (1.) The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration in terms of pleadings that defendant No.3 was the owner in possession of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 195, Khata No.391, Rectangle No.32, Killa No.15 (8-0) measuring 8 kanals situated in Revenue Estate of village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It was averred that defendant No.3 had mortgaged the aforementioned land along with possession with the ancestor of the plaintiffs, namely, Parsu Ram son of Shri Sohan Lal, who was father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No.1. Such mortgage was recorded vide mutation No.621 dated 29.12.1964 for a consideration of Rs.500/- and since that time, Parsu Ram has been coming in possession of the suit land as a mortgagee and thereafter the plaintiffs being legal heirs of deceased Parsu Ram have been in continuous possession of the suit land and still are in actual and physical possession of the suit land. More than 30 years having passed and the plaintiffs being mortgagees for a continuous period for more than 30 years have acquired the rights of ownership free from all sort of encumbrances in respect of the suit land. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 had sold away the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2 vide sale-deeds dated 4.7.1989 and 7.7.1989 respectively. The sale-deeds were challenged being null, void, abnitio and being without jurisdiction. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that neither defendant No.3 nor defendants No.1 and 2 ever redeemed the suit land and had failed to make the payment of Rs.500/- to the plaintiffs i.e. the mortgaged amount and a period of more than 30 years having elapsed from the date of mortgage dated 29.12.1964 and as per law of limitation, the plaintiffs have acquired the rights of ownership in the suit land. The plaintiffs had requested the defendants on a number of occasions to admit their claim but the defendants continued to put off the plaintiffs on one pretext or the other. As such, the suit had been instituted whereby plaintiffs would be owners in possession in equal share of the suit land. It was also pleaded that a decree of possession of the suit land be also passed.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs raising a number of preliminary objections as also setting up a case of denial on merits.;