JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Defendant No.1 (Ch. Kesho Dass) (since expired and now being represented by legal representatives) has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1990 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff (Lochan Singh) against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1988 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Pathankot, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and possession by redemption was dismissed, thereby decreeing the said suit.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Ch. Kesho Dass, as noticed by the first appellate Court, was a big landlord and essentially an influential person of the area. The issue pertains to 227 kanals 3 marlas of land (fully described in the plaint) situated in Village Daulatpur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (at the relevant time Pathankot was in District Gurdaspur) (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').

4. Plaintiff (Lochan Singh) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the suit land and that defendant No.1 (Ch. Kesho Dass) (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') had no right, title or interest in it. He also prayed for the relief of possession by redemption of the suit land on payment of Rs.100/- as mortgage amount alleging that the same was mortgaged with defendant No.2 (Smt. Vidya Devi).

5. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the suit land had been alienated by the defendant to the father of the plaintiff namely Sh. Kohar Singh on 25.08.1952 by way of an oral sale for a total sale consideration of Rs.35000/- Mutation No.949 was sanctioned in favour of Kohar Singh in 1952. Kohar Singh expired on 10.10.1962, after which the suit land was mutated in favour of the plaintiff vide Mutation No.2006 sanctioned on 10.02.1965. It was averred that since then the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and the same was under mortgage with possession with defendant No.2 (Smt. Vidya Devi) for a mortgage amount of Rs.100/-. It was averred that the defendant had wrongly started asserting to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of certain wrong entries in the revenue record which had been procured by him collusively which had cast a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the relief of declaration was sought. As regards the mortgage, it was averred that the land was under mortgage with Vidya Devi and that the same was not redeemable for a period of 30 years, being a usufructuary mortgage with possession. Since defendant No.1 did not admit the claim of the plaintiff nor did defendant No.2 deliver the possession on payment of the mortgage amount, the suit was instituted.

6. Smt. Vidya Devi did not contest the suit and did not appear as a result of which she was proceeded against ex parte. The defendant (Ch. Kesho Dass) opposed the suit by way of a written statement. It was denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land. It was averred that it was the defendant who was the owner in possession of the suit land, as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77. It was averred that the suit land was never sold to Kohar Singh nor any amount had been paid by him to the defendant. It was averred that Kohar Singh was a tenant of the defendant and had got a fictitious mutation entered in his name which was later got cancelled. As regards the mortgage, it was averred that the plaintiff was not the mortgagor.

7. In the replication, the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

'1. Whether plaintiff's father purchase the land in suit vide oral sale dated 25.08.1952 from defendant No.1?OPP

2. Whether the entries in the revenue record in favour of defendant No.1 was collusively producred a