The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence in mortgage redemption proceedings and the preservation of mortgage integrity throughout contested litigations.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. This regular second appeal has a checkered history as the Supreme Court on two different occasions has set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and remanded the case back to the courts for a fresh decision. Hence, it is considered appropriate to give factual background.

2. This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Sh. Sohan Singh, who was the defendant in the suit filed by Sh. Rachhpal Singh for possession by redemption of land measuring 25 kanals and 5 marlas, situated in village Bhatoya. The suit was dismissed on 20.11.1973, which was affirmed in the first appeal by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1975. During the pendency of the regular second appeal, an application under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC was filed for permission to settle the dispute amicably. The application as well as the regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 22.01.1985. Against the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.5205 of 1993, which was allowed on 24.09.1993. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:-

'It is obvious that on that conclusion reached by the High Court, after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3CPC, the Second Appeal had to be heard and decided on merits. However, that was not done and after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, because it was based on a receipt found to be forged, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself without considering the merits of the appeal. This was an obvious error on account of which the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal in this manner has to be set aside.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment, inso far as it relates to the dismissal of the Second Appeal, is set aside. The Second Appeal be now heard on merits and decided afresh by the High Court. No costs.'

3. The High Court once again dismissed the appeal on 25.04.2007. Then, the Supreme Court once again by a detailed judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.5210 of 2009, allowed the appeal on 26.10.2017, by a elaborate order which is extracted as under:-

1. The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 465 of 1976 dated 25th April, 2007 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The father of the appellant mortgaged the property in the form of usufructuary mortgage to one Mr. Beliram. The property was situated in Pakistan. After partition, the parties shifted to India. Since the appellant and his family were displaced from Pakistan, entire family was rehabilitated by providing alternative agriculture land in Village Bhatoya in favour of the father of the appellant. However, Beliram, the mortgagee also shifted to India and stayed in the same village and continued to hold the property which was provided to appellant's father in India for the purpose of rehabilitation as the mortgagee. Beliram transferred his mortgaged rights, in respect of the mortgaged property situated in India in favour of one Mr. Sohan Singh-respondent. After demise of appellant's father, the appellant filed the suit for redemption of mortgage. The Courts below including the High Court have dismissed the suit on the ground that no adequate material is produced by the appellant to show that he is the owner of the property and that he has mortgaged the property in favour of either Beliram or Sohan Singh.

3. It is relevant to note here itself that the appellant's father had owned another property in Pakistan which also was mortgaged in favour of one Inder Singh and one Jagat singh. Almost similar facts as mentioned supra regarding shifting to India after partition, rehabilitation, al