Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.:- Both the aforementioned Regular Second Appeals are being decided by this common judgment as the same have arisen out of the same judgment rendered by learned trial court as well as by learned first appellate Court.

2. Brief facts leading to both the Regular Second Appeals are as under:

Rulda Ram alias Rulda Mal son of Karam Chand was the owner of the suit land measuring 4 kanals 9 marlas, duly described in the plaint as per jamabandi for the year 1974-75 situated in village Agwar Ladhai, Tehsil Jagraon. Present appellant-Smt.Raj Kumari is daughter of Rulda Ram, who has since expired. Suit land was mortgaged by Rulda Ram with Mahant Harnam Dass Chela Mahant Bhagwan Dass for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 27.8.1929, registered on 14.9.1929, Ex.D1. Possession of the land in dispute was delivered to Mahant Harnam Dass in lieu of interest. There is also no dispute that khasra number in dispute was allotted in lieu of previous khasra number mentioned in the mortgage deed at the time of consolidation. Previously, i.e., on 20.10.1970, Rulda Ram filed a suit for redemption of suit land without payment of any amount alongwith suit for recovery of Rs.2,500/- as damages against the defendant, which was got dismissed in default. However, plea was taken that there was compromise dated 20.3.1972 between the parties and as per the said compromise the land was redeemed by Rulda Ram and possession of the land in dispute was also delivered to him by the mortgagee and, however, later on possession was again taken by defendant of the land in dispute in the absence of Rulda Ram without any right or title and thereafter refused to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. Hence, suit has been filed by Smt.Raj Kumari-plaintiff, being daughter of Rulda Ram for possession of the land in dispute on the allegation that defendant is in possession of the same without any right, whereas she is owner of the same, after death of Rulda Ram.

3. Another suit has been filed by Mahant Jawala Dass Chela Mahant Amar Dass Chela Harnam Dass admitting the factum of mortgage. However, it is denied that any compromise was entered between Rulda Ram- deceased and predecessor-in-interest of Mahant Jawala Dass and the land was redeemed. It is also denied that possession was ever taken by Rulda Ram. Rather the plea has been taken that previously Harnam Dass was continuing in possession of the land in dispute as mortgagee since the inception of mortgage deed dated 27.8.1929 and after his death he had been continuing in possession of the same and that neither his predecessor-ininterest nor he was ever dispossessed from the land in dispute. Hence, plea has been taken that his predecessor-in-interest Harnam Singh had become owner of the land in dispute by expiry of time for redemption of mortgage and after his death, he had become owner in possession of the same.

4. As both the suits are regarding the same property and between the same parties, same were ordered to be consolidated by learned trial Court. Proceedings were continued in civil suit filed by Smt.Raj Kumari, the present appellant, and the following issues were framed by learned trial Court for adjudication:-

“1. Whether the mortgage deed dated 27.8.1929 stands redeemed as alleged? If so its effect? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD

4. Relief.”

5. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions before learned trial Court.

6. Learned trial Court decided issue no.1 against present appellant by holding that the mortgage was never redeemed. Issue nos.2 and 3 have also been decided against appellant-plaintiff and hence, suit filed by Smt.Raj Kumari was dismissed, whereas suit filed by respondent-defendant -Mahant Jawala Dass Chela Mahant Amar Dass Harnam Dass was decreed to the extent that appellant was restrained from dispossessing him from the land in dispute or disturb