JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J. :— This appeal by special leave by the defendants is directed against a judgment of the High Court affirming the decree for possession passed by the Trial Court and the first appellate court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. An extent of 80 Bigas and l4 Biswas of land in village Sathan Kalan belonged to one Smt. Bhagwani, widow of Sunder Singh. Beside the said land she owned another item of land also which was allotted to her in substitution of her land bearing Khasra No. 1086. Smt. Bhagwani created a mortgage with possession over the first item of land in favour of Messrs Chuhar Singh, Mita Singh and Lachman Singh for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on January 1, 1914. The said mortgagees sold their rights under the mortgage to one Waryam Singh under Sale Deed dated July 3, 1919 for a consideration of Rs. 2,230/-. The present appellants (defendants 1 to 4 in the suit) are the heirs of Waryam Singh, and they became entitled to the rights of Waryam Singh after his death. The second item of land which Sint. Bhagwani owned was likewise mortgaged with possession to one Ballaura Singh, who figured as defendant No. 5 in the suit.

3. Smt. Bhagwani died in the year 1960 without leaving any heirs. Consequently, her properties went by escheat to the State of Punjab and they were duly mutated in the Revenue Registers. After the lands had reverted to it, the State allotted the two items of lands to the respondents/plaintiffs under the Nazool Lands Transfer Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The allotment was made by the Collector on behalf of the State by means of an order dated May 21, 1968.

4. As per directions given in the order of allotment, the respondents deposited two sums of money viz Rs. 2,230/- towards redemption of the mortgage in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Rs. 743/- towards redemption of the mortgage in favour of defendant No. 5. On the said sums of money being deposited, the Collector issued warrants of possession and served notices on the two sets of mortgagees informing them that the respective mortgages in their favour stood redeemed and that they should surrender possession of the mortgaged items of land to the respondents. It would appear that warrants of possession were also issued by the Collector and the respondents took possession of the two items of land and had deposited at that time a sum of Rs. 607.60 towards compensation for the standing crops on the lands. After the respondents had taken possession, defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit for injunction and obtained an order of temporary injunction and in the garb of protecting their possession, they had wrested the possession of the land from the respondents. On account of that, the respondents filed a suit for possession of the mortgaged lands from the defendants.

5. While defendant No. 5 did not contest the suit defendant Nos. 1 to 4 contended that (a) Smt. Bhagwani had infact left behind certain heirs and hence her properties had not reverted to the State by escheat;

(b) that the suit was barred by limitation: and

(c) that their rights as mortgagees were not affected by the allotment order made in favour of the respondents by the Collector.

6. All the contentions were rejected by the Trial Court but, however, the Trial Court held that a deposit of the mortgage amount in the State treasury would not amount to a valid tender for redemption of the mortgage and, therefore, the respondents should redeposit the amount in Court so that the mortgage can be redeemed through Court. It is common ground that the respondents complied with the direction and deposited the amount in Court and were thereupon granted a decree for possession. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and affirmed the decree for possession.

7. Against the concurrent findings of the two Courts, the appellants preferred a second appeal to the High Court and contended therein that the allotment order made under the Rules was invalid since th