Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants directed against judgment and decree dated 22.8.1983 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Moga whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the property in dispute by efflux of time has been decreed and was upheld by District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.1985.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that Niranjan Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh filed a suit against his brother Chanan Singh and three sisters Gurdev Kaur, Gurdial Kaur and Punjab Kaur seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the land in dispute as the defendants have lost their right of redemption by efflux of time. Bhagwan Singh was the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, who had created an oral mortgage of 1/3rd share of his land bearing field No. 216/16/2 (3 -0), 17(8 -0) situated in Village Raunata in favour of Lahora Singh and Nikka Singh sons of Sunder Singh for an amount of Rs. 600/ -. The report of oral mortgage was lodged with the Patwari on 11.6.1945 and the mutation was sanctioned on 24.7.1945 vide entry Ex. P.9. The plaintiff had purchased mortgagee rights from Lahora Singh and Nikka Singh by way of oral sale, which was recorded by way of mutation dated 27.6.1951 vide entry Ex.P.10. Since then the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the land in question and alleged in the suit that since the mortgagee rights were purchased by him of the land in dispute which has not been redeemed even on expiry of 30 years, therefore, he has become the owner by lapse of time and deserves to be declared as such. Defendant No. 1 Chanan Singh filed a separate written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed separate written statements but contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that firstly, there was no mortgage but in case the plaintiff is proved to be mortgagee of any part of the suit land, his possession over the other parts of the suit land will be considered to be possession of all the co -sharers including the defendants after the death of Bhagwan Singh. It was further pleaded that in fact Bhagwan Singh had mortgaged some portion of land to Lahora Singh and Nikka Singh sons of Sunder Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share and rest 2/3rd share remained with Bhagwan Singh as owner. But in the year 1951, in spite of getting the land redeemed from Lahora Singh and Nikka Singh at the asking of Bhagwan Singh, plaintiff Niranjan Singh out of malice and greed got mutation No. 11675 sanctioned in his favour on 27.6.1951 as vendee of 1/3rd share of land. The payment was made by Bhagwan Singh through the plaintiff to the mortgagees Lahora Singh and Nikka Singh for redemption, therefore, since then Bhagwan Singh and after his death plaintiff, and defendants have become the owners in possession of suit land without any encumbrance. Entries in the revenue record, if any, are fictitious, illegal and ineffective and against the rights of the defendants. Though the plaintiff filed replication but the averments made in the written statement were not specifically denied and were claimed to be not admitted.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by lapse of time? OPP 2. Relief;