- (1.) This will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 951 to 953 of 1974, as common questions are involved their in. Puran Singh and Jeja Singh applied for redemption of mortgage against three set of mortgages. By separate orders dated 31st May, 1971, all the three applications were dismissed by the Collector after recording a finding that Puran Singh and Jeja Singh had failed to prove that they had right to redeem the mortgages. On 4th August, 1971, three separate suits were filed to challenge the respective orders passed by the Collector. It was pleaded that Jawala Singh had created the mortgages and on his having died issueless and without leaving a widow he was succeeded by Wadhawa Singh and Bukan Singh. Bukan Singh also died with the result Wadhawa Singh alone remain mortgagor.
(2.) On death of Wadhawa Singh, his rights devolved upon Kishen Kaur's four sons and on the death of one of the sons, his share was inherited by Puran Singh. The following pedigree would be useful : The other two heirs namely Fauja Singh and Inder Singh were impleaded as a proforma defendant. In this manner, the plaintiffs claimed that mortgagors, rights vested in them and they were entitled to redeem the mortgages. The mortgagees contested the suit. They admitted that ancestors of Wadhawa Singh had created the mortgages in their favour about 80 years ago and hence the suit was barred by time. The relationship of the plaintiffs with Wadhawa Singh was disputed and, therefore, it was pleaded that they had no right to redeem the mortgage. All issues were found by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and the suits were decreed. Even the lower appellate Court decided all issues in favour of the plaintiffs except issue No. 3 whereunder it was found that the plaintiff failed to prove that they were successors in interest of the original mortgagor or Wadhawa Singh. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the suit were dismissed. These are plaintiff's second appeals.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these appeals deserve to succeed. The earliest revenue record is Exhibit P-3 mutation, which shows that on the basis of the registered mortgage deed dated 3rd July 1911, Jawala Singh owner created mortgage in favour of Dayal Singh, Alla Singh, Mit Singh, Gurdit Singh, Wasakha Singh and Banta Singh. While there is no documentary evidence to show that the estate of Jawala Singh was inherited by Wadhawa Singh, Jamabandi Ex P-5 for the year 1938-39 shows that Wadhwa Singh is shown as mortgagor of the land in dispute and the aforesaid persons are shown as the mortgagees. Similar entry continued in Ex P-6, Jamabandi for the year 1944-45. On the death of Wadhawa Singh, mutation Ex P-9 was sanctioned in favour of four sons of Kishen Kaur as his father's sister's children. Exhibit P-1 is Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, wherein it is recorded that Wadhawa Singh was succeeded by sons of Kishen Kaur. On the death of Inder Singh his share was mutated in favour to Teja Singh on the basis of the Will left by him. It is further shown on the record that on the death of Teja Singh his share devolved on Puran Singh. There is also documentary evidence on the record that Bukan Singh died issueless and on his death his share was mutated in the name of Wadhawa Singh. Then the plaintiffs have also produced oral evidence which was in accordance with Sections 50 and 60 of the Evidence Act, but the lower appellate Court erred in law in considering as if the statement of witnesses did not satisfy the requirement of law. Santokh Singh PW 2 has clearly stated that Bukan Singh and Wadhawa Singh used to visit the village of Kishan Kaur and used to address her as Bua, while she addressed them as nephews. Similar is the statement of Kundan Singh PW 3. It is true that in cross-examination both these witnesses could not give the details of the family but it has not been shown why they are supporting the plaintiffs or are telling lie. In any event their statements go a long way in favour of the plaintiffs because they stand corroborated from the documentary evidence on the record, which goes to show that the estate of Wadhawa Singh was mutated in favour of his father's sister's sons and no other nearer relation has so far come forward to claim succession to Wadhawa Singh. The matter assumes further strength in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants because the defendants have completely failed to prove if Kishan Kaur is not daughter of Bura. Evidence could be led by the defendants to prove that Kishen Kaur was not daughter of Bura then the name of that person could be stated. Mere denial on their behalf about relationship would not be sufficient rebuttal of the documentary evidence and the statements of the two witnesses referred to above. Accordingly, on the preponderance of the revenue records and the oral statements coupled with the pleadings of the parties and the circumstances of the case. I am of the considered view that it is established on the record that the plaintiffs were successors-in-interest of Wadhawa Singh. The lower appellate Court had held that Wadhawa Singh was the mortgagor, since he was recorded as such right from 1938-39 onwards and the defendants were shown as mortgagees under him. The plaintiffs having proved that they are next heirs of Wadhawa Singh, they were entitled to redeem the mortgages.;