Appeal--Lower Appellate Court being the last Court of fact and law, was/is enjoined upon an obligation to refer to all the oral and documentary evidence

JUDGMENT

Mr. Amit Rawal, J.:- This order of mine shall dispose of one regular second appeal bearing No.RSA No.1465 of 1992 titled as “Sampuran Singh (deceased) through LRs and others V/s Rajinder Singh (deceased) through LRs and others”, arising out of the decreetal of the suit for possession by way of redemption filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, affirmed in appeal and the criminal petition bearing CRM-M No.16746 of 1996 titled as “Ravinder Singh Sandhu V/s Gurmit Singh and others”, for taking the action against the defendants, appellants in RSA No.1465 of 1992, under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging to have made an attempt to erase the figure ‘1’ from figure ‘12’, from the original record of the office of Sub- Registrar, to make the expiry of the redemption of the original mortgage from 12 years to 2 years.

2. The case has a chequered history. In order to appreciate, it would be in the fitness of the things to give the brief preface of the matter and the events occurred before that.

3. Bhag Singh, Dashondhi, Nawab and Saqi, were the original mortgagors of land measuring 159 Kanals 9 marlas, 168 kanals 2 marlas and 160 kanals 6 marlas (hereinafter referred to as “A”, “B” & “C” respectively), created the mortgage with possession of the aforesaid land, vide three mortgage deeds dated 19.05.1943, in favour of Bachittar Singh, (now dead) represented by the Legal Representatives. Out of three parcels of land, lands mentioned in “A”, some portion of “B” i.e. 151 kanals 1 marla out of 168 kanals 2 marlas and “C”, were sold on 01.05.1944, 21.05.1944 and 03.05.1944, respectively. Post consolidation, the area of the land and allotment of the kewat numbers, as per the pleadings are as under:

D: 169 kanals 1 marla in khewat No.44/42

E: 123 kanals 17 marlas in Khewat No.45/44

F: 8 kanals in Khewat No.44/43

G: 72 kanals 12 marlas in khewat No.50/59.

4. Bachittar Singh sold the mortgagee rights to the defendant/appellant-Partap Singh (now dead) represented by LRs, Sampuran Singh, Gurmit Singh, Paramjit Singh, defendant Nos.2 to 4 i.e. appellants. Rajinder Singh/plaintiff (now dead) represented by LRs i.e. respondent No.1(d)-Gurnam Singh (deceased) represented by LRs i.e. defendant Nos.8 to 10, and Pritam Singh being vendors, sold the land measuring 72 kanals 12 marals as mentioned in “G”, to plaintiff No./respondent No.2-Balbir Singh (deceased) represented by LRs and plaintiff No./respondent No.3-Sukhbans Kaur (deceased) represented by LRs. The said vendors also mortgaged the land in favour of some mortgagees, Surnain Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurnaib Singh, defendants/respondent Nos.5 to 7. The previous mortgagee i.e. Partap Singh (deceased) through LRs, had inducted Buta Singh, Gurnam Singh, Baldev Singh-defendants/respondent Nos.11 to 13, as tenants by way of lease. The mortgage deeds are Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, Ex.PW7/1-PW7/3, Ex.PW11/D-PW11/F, Ex.DW8/A-DW8/C. The mortgage amount was Rs. 10,000/- and the period, as per the averments in the plaint, was 12 (twelve) years. Rajinder Singh and his brothers got 99 kanals 3 marlas out of 160 kanals 6 marlas, redeemed from defendant Nos.15 to 23 and in a subsequent family settlement, Gurnam Singh and Pritam Singh, gave up their rights in the suit land, which had fallen to the share of Rajinder Singh.

5. Respondents/defendant Nos.5 to 7 i.e. Surain Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurnaib Singh, applied for the redemption of the suit land through LRs of Partap Singh, by invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913 (in short ‘the 1913 Act’), on payment of Rs.30,000/-, which was allowed, vide order dated 21.08.1969. The aforesaid order was challenged by the LRs of Partap Singh/defendant Nos.2 to 4, by way of a civil suit under Section 12 of the 1913 Act and in those proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between defendant Nos.5 to 7 and defendant Nos.2 to 4, whereas defendant Nos.5 to 7, agreed not to enforce the order dated 21.08.1969 and withdraw the amou