JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs’) filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgage to the effect that the land measuring 1-7-18 bighas and land measuring 1-1-11 Bigha comprised in Khata/Kthatauni No.28/55 and 13/16, total measuring 2-9-9 bighas, situated in Mauza Bandh and Bani, Pargana Ghar, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh was earlier owned by one Ram Baksh and thereafter on his death by his legal heirs Shiv Ram, Kanchnoo, Thankiya etc. out of whom Gopala successor-in-interest of Thankiya, one of the sons of Ram Baksh, had mortgaged his 1/5th share in this land in favour of one Shangaru for a sum of Rs.240/- in the year 1930. It is averred by the plaintiffs that on the death of Shangaru, he was succeeded by Chet Ram and on the death of Chet Ram by his wife Banto, who was recorded as mortgagee in possession of the entire suit land. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that in the year 1974 Banto sold her mortgagee rights in favour of appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants’) 1 and 2 and mutation to this effect was accordingly attested by revenue authorities. The plaintiffs alongwith other share holders claiming to have succeeded to the entire land filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage in the trial court.

3. Defendants by way of filing written statement denied the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit and their right and title to the property. It is averred by the defendants that they have purchased the land through registered sale deed. However, it is admitted that Shingaru was mortgagee of the suit land and after his death his estate was succeeded by Chet Ram and on his death Banto stepped into his shoes. It is denied that Banto had remarried after his death in 1953 and she had no right or interest in this suit land. It is also denied that Gopala had mortgaged 1/5th share out of the suit land. It is also alleged by the defendants that the mortgager had lost right, title or interest in the land in the year 1970, therefore, no question of redemption arose. In the aforesaid background, the defendants claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land and sought dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of redemption and possession, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the sale deed No.136 dated 24.8.1974 is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently mutation No.224 and 125 are null and void, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction ? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged ? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged ? OPD.

6. Whether the suit lacks material better particulars, as alleged? If so its effect? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD.

9. Whether the defendants have spent more than Rs.75,000/- on the development of land, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP.

10. Relief.”

5. Subsequently vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2005 learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by