Kiran Anand Lall, J. - (1.) Avtar Singh and Balwant Singh plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land detailed in the heading of the plaint. According to them, Achhar Singh deceased, father of Gurbax Singh (defendant no.2), mortgaged the land detailed in para 1 of the plaint, with possession, in favour of their father Ranjit Singh for a sum of Rs.400/- on 29.9.1917. Mutation no.480 of Village Chak Jawahare Wala was sanctioned in this regard. After consolidation, the land detailed in the heading of the plaint, was allotted, in lieu of this land. On the death of Ranjit Singh (mortgagee), his estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and their brother Kartar Singh but later on, in family partition, mortgagee rights of this land fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Likewise, on the death of mortgagor (Achhar Singh), its equity of redemption was inherited by his son Gurbax Singh, defendant no.2 who, later, sold the same to Jaila Singh, defendant no.1. In kharif 1966, Jaila Singh took forcible possession of this land. But, the mortgage was never redeemed. The claim of plaintiffs is that since after the expiry of limitation to redeem the mortgage, which was upto 31.12.1970, they had become its owners, they requested defendant no.1, several times, to deliver back its possession to them. He kept on putting them off, on one excuse or the other. But, ultimately, he refused to deliver its possession. Thereupon, they filed this suit.
(2.) Contest to the suit was given by Jaila Singh, defendants no.1, only. While admitting the factum of mortgage of suit land, in his written statement, he did not admit the date or nature of the mortgage. According to him, plaintiffs had never remained in its possession. He further pleaded that he had purchased it for valuable consideration and since he was in its possession as a purchaser, plaintiffs were not entitled to recover its possession from him. The other defendants did not contest the suit. Parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have become the owner of the suit land? O.P.P. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land? O.P.P. 3. Relief. The trial court dismissed the suit. But, in appeal, the verdict of dismissal was set aside and the first appellate court passed a decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein). This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant no.1.
(3.) However, after having heard arguments from both sides and having carefully gone through the file, I do not find any merit in it.;