IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 515 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 16, 2011 Satish and others .. Appellants Vs. Hari Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs- respondents (herein referred as, 'the plaintiffs') and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 1.9.2010 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. Now against the said judgment, the defendants have come up in regular second. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land after redemption of the mortgage which was effected on 9.12.1968 by the father of the plaintiffs to Ram Chand father of the defendants-appellants (herein referred as, 'the defendants') for a sum of `4000/-. It has been averred that in order to redeem the land Niwaj Khan father of the plaintiffs had moved an application for redemption on which the Collector after getting the mortgage amount deposited, had ordered the redemption on 16.6.1984. The father of the defendants had withdrawn the mortgaged money so deposited. Since the warrant of possession could not be got issued and the mutation with regard to the redemption could not be got entered, therefore, the suit was filed. The plaintiffs have also challenged the revenue entries which came into existence after the order of redemption was passed by the Collector and prayed for seeking possession of the same. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement while admitting the mortgage by Niwaj Khan has further stated that no suit for redemption was filed and no mortgage money was paid or withdrawn by the father of the defendants, as such, since the land was not got redeemed, possession could not be delivered. R.S.A. No. 515 of 2011 -2- *** From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court vide order dated 25.1.2005 framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as contained in para No.1 of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the revenue entries showing the father of the defendants Sh. Ram Chand as mortgagee in possession of the suit land are illegal, null, void, ineffective, inoperative, not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside on the grounds as mentioned in the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 9. Relief” Later on, on 11.11.2009, the trial court framed the following additional issue : 5(a) Whether the defendants have got any right by efflux of time, as prayed for?OPD In oral evidence, the plaintiffs got examined Rasul Khan (PW1), Suraj Prakash Bhalla (PW2) and also examined Girraj Ahlmad (PW3) by way of additional evidence. In documentary evidence, the plaintiffs placed reliance on the documents Ex.PA to Ex.PD and mark P1. R.S.A. No. 515 of 2011 -3- *** On the other hand, the defendants examined Ved Prakash (DW1) besides tendering documents Ex.DW1/B to Ex.DW1/I. Ultimately the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. However, the appellate court reversed the findings while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendantsis that since the copy of the order of redemption has not come on record, therefore, in its absence, it was difficult to hold that if any redemption took place. As a matter of fact, though on account of destroying of the record, the order of redemption could not be placed on record, yet appellants have led sufficient evidence to prove that there was once a mortgage; its redemption also took place and pursuant to that the redemption money was recovered by mortgagee. Ex.DW1/B is the Hindi version of redemption deed which indicates that the mortgage took place in the year 1968 and it was usufructuary mortgage and as such there was no time limit for redemption of the suit land. In such situation, where no time has been fixed in redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage, but would arise only when mortgagor tendered the mortgage amount to the mortgagee or deposited the same in the court. Even otherwise, the mortgage having been effected on 9.12.1968 was got redeemed on 16.6.1984, the suit cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Now coming to the question with regard to redemption. Undoubtedly, the redemption order could not come forth as the record has been destroyed. The plaintiff has produced one extract from the disposal register Ex.PY of the Collector which indicates that Niwaj Khan father of the plaintiffs had filed a suit for redemption against Ram Chand father of the defendants. The certified copies of the entries of the register of the suits which contains the description of the property as well as the parties (the plaintiffs and the defendants) and also the nature of the decree then this certified copy of the register being the public document would be sufficient to establish that the decree was passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. This fact stands corroborated from the testimony of PW-2 Suraj Parkash Bhalla, Assistant Treasury Officer, Nuh who brought the summoned record and stated that on 16.6.1984 Niwaj Khan had deposited a R.S.A. No. 515 of 2011 -4- *** sum of `4000/- as redemption money which was withdrawn by Ram Chand son of Tota Ram (father of the defendants). He has proved the entries of the register Ex.PX. PW-3 Girraj, an employee of the office of the SDO (C) Nuh has proved the entry as Ex.PY, according to which, the Collector had passed the order of redemption on 17.7.1984. No rebuttal evidence has been led to the aforesaid evidence. The documents so proved on the file coming from the public record, prepared by the public servants in the ordinary course of their duties would certainly be treated as public documents and are perse admissible in evidence. Consequently, it would have to be held that after receipt of the mortgage money by Ram Chand, nothing remains behind to be done by the appellants. As such, it would be presumed that the land which was once under the mortgage of Ram Chand stood redeemed, the plaintiffs were certainly entitled to correction in the revenue record after the year 1984 and also entitled to take possession of the suit land. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this case. Dismissed in limine. November 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge