- (1.) Defendant-Bhura who was successful in the trial Court but has been unsuccessful in the lower Appellate Court has filed this second appeal.
(2.) Respondent/plaintiff filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of suit land measuring 4 bighas 8 biswas alleging that plaintiff's father Kidar Nath mortgaged the suit land with possession with Munshi Ram for Rs 41/-. On death of Kidar Nath, plaintiff being his daughter inherited the suit land and became owner-cum-mortgagor. Munshi Ram also died and his mortgagee rights in the suit land were inherited by Kishan Dayal, Maya Wanti and Shanti to whom mortgage money was paid by the plaintiff and mortgage was got redeemed. The mortgagee had, however, inducted the defendant as tenant over the suit land. In view of redemption of mortgage, the defendant being tenant under the mortgagee has no right to continue in possession of the suit land. Accordingly plaintiff sought possession of the suit land.
(3.) The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. It was alleged that the defendant has been cultivating the suit land for more than 100 years and his possession is open, hostile and adverse and he has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. In the alternative the defendant also pleaded that if Kidar Nath is proved to be owner of the suit land, then in that event, the defendant is cultivating the suit land as tenant under him for more than 100 years.;