IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (207) CM No. 6086-C of 1999 in/and RSA No. 3535 of 1999(O&M)

Reserved on: 21.01.2026 Pronounced on: 27.01.2026 Uploaded on: 28.01.2026 Nand Ram and others …Appellants Versus Charan and Anothers …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. P.L.Verma, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the appeal”) has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.05.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Palwal, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the suit property pertains to agricultural land situated in village Ali Brahman. The admitted position between the parties is that the land in dispute was originally mortgaged with possession by the predecessors-in- interest of the respondents in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants. The plaintiffs instituted the civil suit seeking a declaration that they had become owners in possession of 2/3rd share of land measuring 49 Kanals 1 Marla by lapse of time, contending that they and their predecessors had remained in continuous possession of the property for more than 30 years, that the period for redemption had expired and that the revenue entries reflected their uninterrupted possession. On this basis, it was pleaded that the right of redemption stood extinguished and the mortgage rights stood converted into ownership. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and specifically pleaded objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi, estoppal and cause of action. Also pleaded that the period of redemption has not expired as there is no limitation for redemption of mortgage with possession. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had perfected any ownership rights and entries in their names , in the column of possession are null and void.

3. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination, so as to secure a precise and legally structured adjudication of the controversy:

1. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property detailed in para no.1 of the plain t on account of expiry of period of limitaion? OPP

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD

5. Relief.

4. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defences. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs had perfected their title on account of long possession over more than 30 years and lapse of time for redemption of mortgage. Aggrieved thereof, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a categorical finding that the original transaction between the parties was a mortgage with possession and that the plaintiffs were holding possession only in their capacity as mortgagees. It was further held that mere continuance of possession for a long period and the existence of mutation or jamabandi entries in favour of the plaintiffs do not confer ownership nor extinguish the mortgagor’s right of redemption. The learned First Appellate Court observed that the equity of red