- (1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the agricultural land has decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The land in dispute belonged to one Kala Singh son of Bhagwan Singh. Kala Singh mortgaged this land to Naginder Singh and one Balour Singh. Balour Singh sold his mortgagee rights with Ram Singh plaintiff and thus the plaintiffs became the mortgagees of the suit land. Prior to this a part of the suit land was mortgaged with Mahana Singh, defendant No. 3, for Rs. 831/-. According to the plaintiffs, he received back the mortgage amount of Rs. 831/- from Naginder Singh and Blour Singh mortgagees and the mortgage thus stood redeemed. Later on Kala Singh and he was succeeded by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and one Harnam Singh deceased. Harnam Singh also died on 5th February, 1970 without leaving any wife or issue and Ran Singh, who was a nephew of the deceased and in whose favour the deceased executed a registered Will, became his heir. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 took possession of the land, although they had no right to do so and since they refused to deliver the possession to the plaintiff, hence the present suit was filed for possession of the land being subsequent mortgagees. The suit was inter alia contested on the grounds that Kala Singh never mortgaged this land in favour of Naginder Singh and Balour Singh, as alleged. It was pleaded that land in fact was mortgaged with Nidhan Singh, father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and grandfather of defendant No. 3, more than 60 years ago. Defendant No. 3 filed a civil suit regarding the land got a declaration that he was a mortgagee of that land and on the basis of that decree a mutation was sanctioned in his favour. It was further pleaded that previously the plaintiffs had filed a redemption application with respect to the land in suit which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moga, on 23rd December, 1968, vide Exhibit D-1. But the plaintiffs never brought in any suit challenging the said order within a period of one year and, therefore, the present suit filed on 11th May, 1970, was barred by time.
(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were subsequent mortgagees of the suit land, it was also held that defendant No. 3 Mahna Singh was mortgagee of land for a sum of Rs. 831/-. On the question of limitation the learned trial Court found that the order of the Collector, Exhibit D-1, had no bearing on the present suit, as in this case the plaintiffs have been held to be the subsequent mortgagees and as such they are entitled to redeem the previous mortgage from Mahna Singh defendant. In view of this finding the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On the material question of limitation the learned lower appellate Court found that what the order Exhibit D-1 passed by the Collector shows is that he did not go into the merits of the case, he simply held that plaintiffs had failed to prove their title for redemption of the suit. Thus relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in Gurditta Singh and others v. Harbans Singh,1974 PunLR 418 (Corresponding to 1974 PLJ 325) it was held that the suit was not barred by time as the plaintiffs were not bound to get the said order set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the defendants have filed the second appeal in this Court.;