Smt. HOOJA, C.—This second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999 of Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar passed in appeal No. 27/98 (286/81).

2. The factual matrix of this chequered case is that Prasadi Lal and Chhaju Ram sons of Khyali Ram mortgaged two-third share of their tenancy rights in the suit lands in favour of Tansukh Ram son of Birbal Mahajan and Vishmbhar Dayal son of Amichand (defendants No. 1 and 2 and respondents No. 3 to 6 herein) through a registered usufructuary mortgage deed executed on 22.12.1943. Subsequently these mortgagees- Vishamber Dayal and Tansukh Ram- further sold their mortgagee rights in the suit lands to Mani Ram son of Bhullad Mal through a sale deed executed on 19.10.1951. The descendents of Mani Ram (deceased) are impleaded as defendants No. 3 to 9 (respondents before this Court). Thereafter the transferees of the mortgages further sub-let the land for one year to one Ram Kunwar who was added as defendant No. 13 later on by the Trial Court.

3. Thus, after the suit lands having passed hands in such a manner, the original mortgagors of the lands filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Kishangarhbas for ejectment of the defendants (respondents herein) from the suit lands on the ground, interalia, that the mortgage-period had expired and the mortgage stood redeemed. The Assistant Collector after framing thirteen issues and giving opportunity of hearing to contending parties allowed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 10.6.1981. This was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in first appeal under Section 223 of the Act before Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.6.1981 of Assistant Collector, Kishangarhbas by the impugned judgment dated 30.8.1999. Aggrieved against this judgment dated 30.8.1999 of Settlement Officer cum-Revenue Appellate Authority. The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the second appeal in this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit land are recorded in all the revenue records in the names of Prasadi Lal, Chhaju and Tarachand sons of Khyali Ram. Of these three co-tenants. Prasadi Lal and Chhaju Ram who held two thirds share in the suit lands as khatedars mortgaged their two-thirds share in the land to Vishambar Dayal and Tansukh Ram through a registered mortgage deed dated 22.12.1943. Thereafter these mortgagees further sold their mortgagee rights to Mani Ram who in turn later handed over suit lands to one Ram Kunwar for cultivation for one year. But Ram Kunwar did not deliver possession back to the subsequent mortgagee and continued to occupy the land forcibly. The learned counsel submitted that under Section 43(3) of the Act a mortgage which was made before the commencement of the Act cannot survive after twenty years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed. In the given case mortgage deed was executed on 22.12.1943; I so twenty years thereafter i.e. on 22.12.1963, the mortgage was deemed to be satisfied in full and the mortgagee and their transferees are legally bound to hand over possession back to the mortgagor-khatedars. But respondents-defendants continue to occupy the lands forcibly. After expiry of the period of twenty years after execution of the mortgage, the respondents defendants have now become trespasser and be ejected under Section 183-A of the Act.

6. It was further contended that the original mortgagees of the suit land. Vishambhar Dayal and Tansukh have given a reply of consent in their written statement in the Trial Court to decree the suit. Mani Ram, the subsequent transfree, has also stated in his written statement that Ram Kunwar (respondent No.1) is forcibly occupying the land unauthorisedly. In such a situation the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document