IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 839 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.1.2009 Sohan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri Vikas Bahl,Advocate. Versus Sital Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is the plaintiff's second appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 9.6.2005 whereby his suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahar (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and judgment & decree dated 19.9.2007 of the Additional District Judge, Nawahanshar (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') vide which his appeal was rejected. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that orders dated 10.6.1994 passed in File Nbo.17/R.E.D./S.D.O. Of 1994 and File No.18.R.E.D./S.D.O. Of 1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nawanshahar, exercising the powers of the Collector, regarding redemption of land measuring 13 kanals are illegal, inoperative, void and not binding on his rights. R.S.A.No.839 of 2008 -2- .... It was the case of the appellant that the land in question was mortgaged by Chanchal Singh, common predecessor-in-interest of him and the respondents with one Tej Kaur wife of Baskhshish Singh alias Gurbax Singh vide mortgage deed dated 9.6.1971 for a consideration of Rs.15000/-. Chanchal Singh died and his estate was inherited by the appellant and Sital Singh, Gurbax Singh and Ajit Singh, his sons, on the basis of registered will dated 12.9.1973 in equal shares. The will contained a recital that out of the mortgage amount of Rs.15000/-, in the event of the redemption of the suit land, Gurbax Singh- respondent alone will pay Rs.5000/- separately and remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by his all four sons in equal shares because Rs.7500/- were previously given by the testator- Chanchal Singh to the said respondent for his exclusive use. All the four beneficiaries of the will, therefore, stepped into the shoes of Chanchal Singh. Appellant-Sohan Singh filed an application for redemption of the suit land after depositing the entire mortgage amount and the Collector, Nawanshahar vide orders dated 11.1.1994 redeemed the land in his favour and possession was delivered to him on 8.2.1994 by the revenue officials. It was the further case of the appellant that he redeemed the entire mortgage and, therefore, he stepped into the shoes of Tej Kaur, the mortgagee, after redemption of the suit land and that the orders dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nawanshahar on the applications filed against him by Sital Singh and Gurbax Singh (respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein) for redemption of 6-1/2 kanals of land and by Gurmej R.S.A.No.839 of 2008 -3- .... Kaur, widow of, Balhar Singh, Jagtar Singh,sons of and Baldish Kaur daughter of Ajit Singh ( respondent nos. 3 to 6 herein) for redemption of 3- 1/4 kanals of land are wrong, illegal and not binding upon him. He had pleaded that the respondents had not deposited the amount according to the stipulation in the will and, therefore, the impugned orders were erroneous. It was also averred that Gurbax Singh-respondent was residing abroad at that point of time and the entire exercise was fictitious and that he had not deposited the amount as per the wishes of the testator. Along with the prayer for declaration, the appellant had also sought a direction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing him from the suit land. Only Sital Singh-respondent no.1 had contested the suit and the remaining respondents were proceeded ex parte. The pleas of the appellant were controverted and it was stated that even though, the Collector, Nawanshahar had passed the order of redemption in his favour, but he was never put in possession as respondent no.1 was in possession of the suit land to the extent of his share and the share of Gurbax Singh, which can also be inferred from the order of the Collector. It was also pleaded that the appellant was empowered to redeem his share after depositing the amount as per the stipulation in the will. The trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is mortgagee of the suit land?OPP 2. Whether the order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Collector R.S.A.No.839 of 2008 -4- .... Nawanshahar is illegal and void?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?OPD 5. Relief. The trial Court, after appraisal of the entire evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit. In appeal, the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that a partial redemption was not permissible under the law and referred to the recital in the will to contend that the same has not been complied with and that the appellant had redeemed the entire land and that subsequent orders were, therefore, patently illegal. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the whole record. Broadly, the facts are not in dispute that Chanchal Singh had executed a will dated 12.9.1973 and bequeathed his property in equal shares in favour of his four sons. The land having been redeemed in the first instance by depositing the entire amount cannot, therefore, defeat the rights of the respondents. The plea that redemption is partial is incorrect as the appellant had redeemed the entire land and the respondents had merely deposited their share of the amount, to lay a claim to their share, as determined by the will. R.S.A.No.839 of 2008 -5- .... The amount so deposited by the respondents being the proportion of their share was also directed to be paid to the appellant. The rights of the respondents regarding succession were governed by the will in which there was a clear stipulation contemplating the amount to be deposited for redemption of the land and in case, the appellant had deposited the entire amount to redeem the whole of the land, he was, at best, entitled to recover the remaining amount according to the shares defined in the will from the respective respondents, but, under no circumstance, he could defeat the terms of the succession as determined by the testator in his will. There is, thus,no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. January 09,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge