R.S.A. No.3452 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3452 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 3.3.2010 Nasib Kaur & others .... Appellants VERSUS Gurnam Singh & another .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The only dispute inter se between the parties in the present suit is that whether the redemption of mortgage as effected by respondent No.1 on 31.3.1998 was valid or whether the appellant prior to the passing of the order dated 31.3.1998 by the Colletor, Patiala had redeemed the mortgage by way of document P-3. The dispute is regarding the land of one Sarwan Singh, who had mortgaged the property vide mortgage deed dated 27.2.1976 in favour of respondent No.2 Harnek Singh. The appellants and the respondents are the nephews of Sarwan Singh. Both the parties claimed the property on the basis of succession. The instant suit was filed with the following prayer given in the plaint:- “It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may R.S.A. No.3452 of 2008 (O&M) -2- kindly be decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff No.1 and against defendants No.1 & 2, declaring that the aforesaid order dated 31.3.1998 passed by Collector sub-Division, Patiala is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and does not affect the rights of plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs are not liable to be dispossessed from the suit land in execution of the said order; Also it be declared that plaintiff no.1 is the owner and in possession of the suit land, and defendant No.1 be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land in any manner.” The Trial Court and also the first Appellate Court concluded that the document P-3 on which reliance has been placed by the appellants, was not worthy of credence but held the order 31.3.1998 to be valid document by which mortgage was redeemed by respondent No.1. The question of succession was, therefore, allowed to the extent of shares as proclaimed by the parties and liberty was granted to the appellants to claim possession on the basis of inheritance to the extent of shares by seeking recourse to the separate proceedings. It was observed that in the instant suit there is no such prayer to seek possession. After having gone through the impugned judgments and after having considered the respective contentions of both the parties to the dispute, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below are not incorrect for the simple reason that R.S.A. No.3452 of 2008 (O&M) -3- there is no prayer for possession made in the plaint, which is evident from the prayer clause extracted above. The observations of the Courts below cannot be construed to be erroneous. The appellants, if so advised may have recourse to separate proceedings to claim their shares to the estate of Sarwan Singh by making an appropriate prayer. The Courts cannot grant a prayer which has never been made in a suit. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. The application for stay is also dismissed in view of above. 3rd March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE