IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.01.2025

1 RSA-1518-1993 (O&M)

Rawat Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. ….Appellants Versus Indraj & ors. ….Respondents

2 RSA-1519-1993 (O&M)

Rawat Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. ….Appellants Versus Prithi & ors. ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ****

Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

PANKAJ JAIN, J.(ORAL)

1 These two appeals arise out of single suit filed by the appellant-

plaintiff.

2 Appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal. For convenience parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the lis i.e. the appellant as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.

3 Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. Plaintiff also claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession apart from a registered mortgage deed dated 30.05.1950.

4 Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that Hazari (father of defendants No.1 to 3) mortgaged the suit land in his favour by a registered deed dated 30.05.1950 for Rs.750/-. Hazari while executing the mortgage deed acted on behalf of his minor sons i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 also. Sum of Rs.250/- was paid to Hazari before Sub Registrar. Remaining amount of Rs.500/- was to be paid to Khayali (brother of Hazari) in whose favour the land was already mortgaged. Plaintiff further claimed that Hazari gifted rights of redemption in favour of his minor sons i.e. defendants No.1 & 2. Mutation was sanctioned. Rs.500/- were paid to Khayali by the plaintiff. The property was got redeemed from Khayali. Mutation bearing No. 531 with respect to suit property was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that defendants having failed to get the land redeemed he has become owner. Plaintiff further pleaded in alternate that he has become owner by way of prescription being in continuous uninterrupted possession. Further it was claimed that defendants No.1 & 2 wrongly transferred 1/4^th share of the suit property in favour of defendant No.4 by a Civil Court judgment and decree dated 05.09.1973. Plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.2 has unlawfully sold part of the suit property in favour of defendants No.4 to 8 vide registered sale deed dated 25.06.1973 which is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

5 Suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1 locus of the plaintiff to maintain suit was questioned. It was denied that the suit land was ever mortgaged by Hazari in favour of the plaintiff. It was further claimed that defendants No.1 to 3 being minors at the time of alleged mortgage deed dated 20.05.1950, the mortgage deed has no effect on the rights. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was disputed. His plea of adverse possession was contested claiming that he being not in possession, cannot claim ownership by way of prescription. In written statement filed by defendants No.4 to 8 it was claimed that they are owners in possession of the suit property being bona- fide purchasers. It was further claimed that on 20.05.1950 Hazari gifted land-in-suit to the defendants No.1 & 2. On the day Hazari executed mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff, he has no right, title or interest over the property. Mutation bearing No.531 was incorporated in the Revenue record on the basis of order dated 12.08.1950 passed by Assistant Collector I Grade, Sirsa. The same was set aside by Collector in appeal vide order dated 12.10.1951. The mortgage money, if any deposited by Hazari was refunded. Plaintiff earlier also filed Civil suit bearing No.77 dated 22.06.1952 against Khayali and Hazari seeking possession of the suit land.

The same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.1953.

6 During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended plaint and in