RSA No.3909 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3909 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2009 Yunus ..Appellant Vs. Surjan & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CM No.11061-C of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 58 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. RSA No.3909 of 2007 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 14.3.2006 and 25.4.2007 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction stands decreed. RSA No.3909 of 2007 2 The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit property having redeemed the same from the mortgagee. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant on the plea that suit property was mortgaged in favour of Nur Mohd and Kabir Ahmad, in equal shares, whereas in the revenue record there is redemption only in respect of share of Nur Mohd.and not Kabir Ahmad. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/respondents were recorded in possession of the property in dispute since the year 1960-61. Kabir Ahmad was shown to be mortgagee he is said to have sold mortgagee rights to the appellant/defendant by way of registered deed on 12.5.1998. Learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the sale of mortgagee rights in favour of the defendant-appellant did not vest any right in him. The plaintiff/respondents were recorded in possession since 1961. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration by this court:- 1. Whether in the absence of any proof of payment of debt can presumption be drawn of redemption? 2. Whether the learned courts below were in error in decreeing the suit in the absence of proof of redemption? Learned counsel for the appellant contends that once in the revenue record entry of redemption was only qua Nur Mohd. the courts RSA No.3909 of 2007 3 below were not justified in holding that the property stood redeemed in the absence of any proof of payment of redemption amount. It is claimed that substantial questions of law as raised be answered in favour of the appellant/defendant. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. No separate mortgage were executed in favour of Nur Mohmad and Kabir Mohmad. Merely because mortgages were in equal shares would not mean that the partial redemption is allowed. The redemption was, thus, for whole of the land. Once it has been proved that the mortgage was redeemed and in pursuance thereto the plaintiff/respondent came in possession of the suit property, the learned courts below were justified in holding the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was rightly decreed. The substantial questions of law as raised do arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 27.01.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge