V.K. Sharma, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Courts below accepting the application moved by the plaintiff -respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The plaintiff -respondents filed a suit for declaration claiming that suit property measuring 13 Bighas 2 Biswas along with half share of well comprised in khasra No. 514, situated in the revenue estate of village Aurangabad, Tehsil and District Sonepat was earlier mortgaged with possession by the original owner -Smt. Premo to one Kabool Singh for mortgaged amount of Rs. 1,600/ - on 11.6.1946. Mutation No. 328 dated 12.6.1946 was duly entered. The mortgage was said to be oral with simultaneous delivery of possession. As per the terms and conditions of the mortgage, amount of interest was equal to usufruct of the land. It was claimed that at the time of execution of the mortgage, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not applicable in the State of Punjab (now Haryana) and as such the limitation for redemption of mortgage started from the date of creation of mortgage, which, as per the Limitation Act 1908, was 60 years and when the said Act was later repealed by Limitation Act 1963, the limitation for redemption was reduced from 60 years to 30 years. During the consolidation proceedings, this property was allotted to Smt. Premo as mortgagor and Suraj Mal son of Kabool Singh as mortgagee with possession. Suraj Mal, who was successor -in -interest of his father Kabool Singh, the original mortgagee, sold his mortgagee rights to Chinta Ram, the predecessor -in -interest of present plaintiffs and the mutation bearing No. 430 was, accordingly, sanctioned on 9.1.1961. The sale of mortgagee rights was again for the original mortgage amount of Rs. 1,600/ -. On the death of Smt. Premo on 27.9.1977, the inheritance was sanctioned in respect of the suit property, where she was recorded as mortgagor and Kabool Singh as the first mortgagee and Chinta Ram as second mortgagee. Suraj Mai son of Kabool Singh came into possession of this property from the date of purchase of mortgagee rights itself and is said to have remained in possession till his death on 5.01.1995. The plaintiffs claimed that Chinta Ram had acquired absolute right in the mortgaged property by lapse of time as provided for redemption of mortgaged property under Indian Limitation Act 1963.
(3.) It was further claimed that Chinta Ram was not required to file a suit for fore -closure. As such, he became absolute owner in possession of the suit property after the expiry of period of limitation provided for redemption of the mortgaged property. It was also claimed that successor -in -interest of Smt. Premo, namely Om Parkash also did not get the mortgaged property redeemed within the stipulated period under the Indian Limitation Act 1963.;