IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 218 of 2018 alongwith RSA No. 246 of 2022 Decided on: 1 s t December, 2023 ____________________________________________________

1 . RSA No. 218 of 2018 Surjit Kumar and others ....Appellants.

Versus Prem Singh and others ....Respondents.

2 . RSA No. 246 of 2022 Surjit Kumar and others ....Appellants.

Versus Prem Singh and others ....Respondents.

__________________o___________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? ¹ RSA No. 218 of 2018 For the Appellants: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a), 1 (c) to 1 (h).

Respondents No. 2 to 4, 7 and 9 are ex-parte vide order dt. 20.08.2019.

Respondent No.5 is stated to have expired.

Respondents No.1 (b) (i), 1 (b) (ii) and 1 (b) (iv)

are ex parte vide order dated 17.03.2022.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Service of respondents No. 6 and 8 was exempted in the 1^st Appellate Court vide its order dt.10.11.2015.

RSA No. 246 of 2022 For the Appellants: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a), 1 (c) to 1 (h).

Respondents no. 2 to 4, 7 and 9 are ex parte vide order dt.20.08.2019, M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

These two Second Appeals arise out of Civil Suit no. 94/2001 instituted by the Appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants and a Counter Claim no.16/2004 in the said suit made by the respondents against the plaintiffs.

2) hThe said suit came to be filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs before thge Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh ifor declaration that they, along with proforma defendant no. 2, are owners in possession of the subject land being mortgagees in possession for more than 30 years; that by efflux of time they became owners thereof; the name of 1^st defendant, namely Smt. Chinto Devi, deceased, appearing in the revenue records as owner should be deleted; and an injunction be granted restraining the respondents claiming through her from interfering with the suit land.

3) The parties will henceforth be referred to as per their array in the suit.

The case of the plaintiffs

4) The plaintiffs alleged that the subject property originally belong to one Hoshnaku, the husband of deceased defendant no.1 Chinto Devi and in the year 1921/22, the land had been mortgaged with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, who had purchased the mortgagee rights from all the mortgagees and stepped into the shoes of mortgagees.

5) It is contended that since 1921/22, the suit land stood mortgaged with possession with the pulaintiffs who are in continuous possession thereof; that defendant no.2 haod purchased the land from one Jagat Ram, but since he had not been jCoined by the plaintiffs, he has been impleaded as a proforma defendant.

6) It is alleged that the mortgage, being more than 30 years old, and since the deceased defendant no.1 or her successors did not redeem the same within the period of 30 years, the deceased defendant no.1 had lost each and every right to redeem the same within the period of limitation, and so the plaintiffs/plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by efflux of time and the entry showing defendant no.1 as owner and mortgagor is illegal, wrong, null and valid.

7) A permanent injunction was also sought restraining the 1^st defendant from claiming any title over the suit land or interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

The stand of the defendants/ counter claim made by them

8) Written-statement was filed by defendant no.1 Chinto Devi through her Power of Attorney holder admitting that the suit land was mortgaged with possession by her predecessor-in-interest in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, that the possession of the suit land continued with them and the plaintiffs ha