MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THE present judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 29 of 1991 and 1698 of 2004 as the facts and controversy raised therein are intertwined. The facts are extracted from Regular
(2.) THE Regular Second Appeal No. 29 of 1991 has been filed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 17.11.1988 and the judgment of the lower appellate Court dated 17.10.1990. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in the suit property and for restraining them from taking its forcible possession. It was pleaded that the appellant is the widow of one Hari Singh who was the mortgagee in possession of the land in question and that the respondents were trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property without any legal right.
(3.) THE respondents, who were the defendants in the suit, resisted the suit of the appellant and pleaded that the mortgage had been got redeemed by the mortgagor Shiv Singh (since expired and represented by his legal heirs) on payment of the entire mortgage amount of Rs. 400/- and a receipt was executed on 10.3.1956 by the mortgagee Hari Singh in favour of the respondents. The possession of the appellant on the suit property was denied and rather it was pleaded that the respondents were in continuous possession of the suit property after the redemption of the mortgagee.;