R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Arjan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Sahib Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for redemption of the land in dispute. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Pal Singh had mortgaged the suit land measuring 27 kanals 11 marlas with defendants No.1 and 2 and Lakha Singh for a sum of ` 12,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 8.2.1965. Lakha Singh had died and kartar Kaur-defendant No.3 had been impleaded as a party being his legal representative. The plaintiff had purchased 12 kanals 4 marlas of land out of the land mortgaged with the defendants from Karnail Singh, Harjit Singh, Kulwant Singh, Harjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh vide sale deed dated 11.1.1985 for a consideration of ` 20,000/-. Mutation on the basis of the sale deed had been R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) 2 sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 stated that the original mortgager Pal Singh had mortgaged the land measuring 27 kanals 11 marlas vide mortgage deed dated 8.2.1965 for a sum of ` 12,000/- with defendants No.1 and 2 and Lakha Singh. They had again mortgaged the land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas with defendant No.2 Arjan Singh by creating an additional charge for a sum of ` 2,000/- in addition to the previous mortgage amount. The plaintiff had got redeemed the land from Arjan Singh and he had handed over the mortgage deed dated 5.4.1976 to the plaintiff. The said mortgage deed was placed on record in suit bearing No.362/ 25.11.1999 decided on 30.7.2003. Mutation No.3021 had been sanctioned qua redemption of the said mortgage. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.7.2002 as she had failed to appear despite service. Defendants No.2 and 3, in their written statement, averred that after the suit land was mortgaged by Pal Singh in favour of the defendants, Pal Singh had created a charge over the land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas bearing khasra No.412, 416, 418 and 438 vide registered mortgage deed dated 5.4.1976 in favour of Arjan Singh. Mortgage was for 14 years and was for a sum of ` 14,000/-. Mejo, Kulwant Singh and Piara Singh, legal representatives of Pal Singh, sold the land measuring 16 kanals 9 marlas out of the suit land bearing khasra No.420 (8-9), 419 min (4-0), 424 (4-0) vide sale deed dated 21.3.1983 to defendant No.2. Arjan Singh-defendant No.2 continued to be in possession of the said land on the basis of the sale deed as owner. Arjan Singh was a co-sharer in the joint land. The plaintiff was not entitled to get possession of the R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) 3 suit land till it was partitioned by the revenue authorities. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the land in dispute by redemption of the mortgage created vide mortgage deed dated 8.2.1965 by Pal Singh? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas by redemption of the mortgage created vide mortgage deed dated 5.4.1976 by Pal Singh ? OPP 3. Whether the defendant No.2 has purchased the land measuring 16 kanals 9 marlas out of the suit land from Mejo, Kulwant Singh and Piara Singh legal heirs of Pal Singh and Piara Singh legal heirs of Pal Singh vide sale deed dated 21.3.1983? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filling the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 8. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the Additional R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) 4 District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2010 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession after making payment of the mortgage amount to the defendants or after depositing the same in the Court and thereafter, the Court would pass the final decree. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.2 and 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed the suit for redemption. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff proved on record the mortgage deed dated 8.2.1965 Ex.P-3. As per the said deed, the period of mortgage was for seven years and the mortgage amount was ` 12,000/-. The said mortgage deed was executed by Pal Singh in favour of Harnamo, Arjan Singh and Lakha Singh (predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.3). Thereafter, Pal Singh executed another mortgage deed in favour of Arjan Singh qua 12 kanals 4 marlas of land on 5.4.1976 Ex.P-4. Mortgage period as per the said mortgage deed was 14 years and the mortgage amount was ` 14,000/- . Admittedly, children of Pal Singh sold 12 kanals 4 marlas of land to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 11.1.1985 Ex.P-2 for a consideration of ` 20,000/-. As per the said sale deed ` 14,000/- mortgage amount was adjusted qua the sale consideration. ` 6,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to vendors before the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed Ex.P-2. Thus, the plaintiff got the rights of the mortgager and the defendants became mortgagee under the R.S.A.No. 1437 of 2010(O&M) 5 plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff moved an application for redemption of the suit land before Collector, Tarn Taran but the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.1990. A perusal of the said order (placed on record) reveals that the parties were advised to seek their remedy in the civil Court. The redemption amount deposited in the Court by the plaintiff was ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking redemption of the mortgaged land. Since the plaintiff had stepped into the shoes of the original mortgager after purchase of the land, the suit filed by the plaintiff for redemption was maintainable. Learned Additional district Judge had, thus, rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for redemption. Mortgage deed was executed on 5.4.1976 and the mortgage period was 14 years. Thereafter, the plaintiff could file the suit within 30 years as per Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for redemption when the right to redeem was accrued. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 18, 2011 anita