Order:- The petitioner Gambhirmal filed an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaur on 12th May 1915 which for reasons mentioned hereafter was treated as a revision and is being dealt with accordingly.

2. One Gyanchand filed a suit in the Court of Thikana Nimaj on 17th september 1943 on the allegation that a certain house and a Nohra situate at Pipar were mortgaged with possession by his father Chandan Mal to Shobha Chand and Kalyan Chand in S.1948 for Rs.500 and that Udai Chand defendant 1 was their sole heir and legal representative. It was alleged that the predecessor in-title of Udaichand had submortgaged the property to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 viz., Simrathmal, Samirmal, Gambhirmal, Mt. Dhapi, Mt. Teenja and Manakohand, and by certain arrangements between the said defendants, the property was now in possession of Mt. Dhapi and Teenja. It was stated that as the defendants refused to redeem the property on tender being made to them, the plaintiff came to file this suit.

3. Defendants 1, 4, 6 and 7 did not enter appearance. It was contested by Mst. Dhapi who denied the plaintiffs title to the property and mortgage or submortgaged alleged by him and pleaded that the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 got into possession of the property sometime in S.1919 in lieu of certain debts outstarding against Sejmal Sobhachand who handed over the property to them. It was stated that on partition among the members of the family, this property came into share of Khubohand husband of Mt. Dhapi and Phoolchand husband of Mt. Teenja. It was further alleged in the additional pleas that the plaintiff served a notice on the predecessors in title of defendants 2 to 7 to deliver possession of the property on 13th June 1892 on the ground that he had redeemed the property from Sobhachand Kalyanchand in S.1948 but they had denied the plaintiffs title and refused to vacate and, therefore, ever since that date they and their successors were in adverse possession also. In other pars of the written statement, they mentioned that Rs.3539/15/- on account of principal and costs of improvements and interest were chargeable on the property.

4. Samirmal joined in the written statement of Mt. Dhapi while Samrathmal though traversing the plaintiffs allegations denied the partition among the predecessors of defendants 2 to 7.

5. The plaintiff by a re-joinder reiterated his claim and the fact of the mortgage having been effected as stated in the plaint.

6. The trial Court framed 7 issues of which the following are relevant for the purpose of this revision:

"(3) Whether the Haveli and the Nohra belonged to the plaintiff and his ancestors mortgaged the same to the ancestors of defendant 1.

(4) On proof of issue 3 whether the ancestors of defendant 1 sub-mortgaged the said property to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 who thereby got possession of the same and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem it.

(7) Whether defendants 2 to 7 are in adverse possession of the property."

7. After a lengthy trial, the trial Court found on issues 3 and 4 that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged mortgage of S.1948 as also the sub-mortgage in favour of the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7. On issue 7, he found that in their reply to the notice of 13th June 1892, the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 did not assert their ownership over the property and, therefore, their possession was not adverse to that of the true owner.

8. In view of the result on issue 3, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

9. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Nagaur, and during the course of haring filed an application on 31st march 1949 stating that according to certain documents produced by the contesting defendant, it appeared that the mortgage was effected by the ancestor of the plaintiff in Et, 1921 for a sum of Rs.1300 out of which Rs.600 had been repaid and the t the plaintiff who was a minor had recently come into possession of certain docu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document