The court affirmed plaintiffs' right to redeem the mortgaged property within the limitation period despite challenges on ownership and legal heir claims.

ORDER

1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants and is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The present respondents – original plaintiffs had filed the Regular Civil Suit No.42 of 1993 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession of the land in question. The 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar allowed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2014. This was challenged by the original defendants before the District Court, Gandhinagar by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2015. The said appeal is dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

It is this judgment and decree, which is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Heard learned advocates.

3. Mr.Gohil, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that, the suit was barred by limitation and even on merits, no relief could have been granted to the plaintiffs. It is submitted that, both the Courts below fell in error and the suit was required to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the material on record.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the respondents – original plaintiffs has submitted that neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court below has committed any error, in appreciating the material on record. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under.

5.1 The Trial Court had, on the basis of the pleadings before it, framed the following issues and on the basis of the evidence led before it, all the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

“1.

Whether the Plaintiff proves that on 29.03.1933, the suit property was mortgage by way of registered mortgage deed ? (In Affirmative)

2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Shri Laluram Govindram - Owner (As per order below Exh.270) of suit property by way of execution of decree ? (In Affirmative)

3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that they are ready and willing to pay mortgage amount to Defendant ? (In Affirmative)

4. Whether Defendant No.3 proves that suit is not tenable in view of Section-8 of Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 1947 ? (In Negative)

5. Whether the Defendant No.1 and 2 prove that they are in possession of and became owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession ? (In Negative)

6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for redemption of Suit Property ? (In Affirmative)

7. What is order and decree ? (As per order)”

5.2 The Appellate Court below, on the basis of the grounds raised before it, framed the following points for determination and found that the Trial Court did not commit any error.

“1.

Whether the Trial Court has failed to considered that the suit is barred for non-joinder of the parties and the respondents are not the legal heirs of Mahashankar Daulatbhai ? (In the Negative)

2. Whether the Trial Court has failed to consider that the suit was barred by law of limitation ? (In the Negative)

3. Whether the appellants have become the owner of the suit premises by adverse possession ? (In the Negative)

4. What is order and decree ? (As per the final order)”

5.3 This Court has considered the findings recorded by the Courts below vis-a-vis the material on record and finds that none of the Courts below can be said to have committed any