IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :09.09.2025 GURDIAL SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS BALDEV SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Nisha, Advocate and Mr. Anubhav Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by defendants-appellants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 14.01.1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide which appeal preferred by plaintiffs was allowed and judgment and decree dated 24.10.1990 passed by Sub Judge I^st Class, Phul was set-aside, vide which learned Court of first instance had dismissed the suit of plaintiff.

2. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. It was the case of plaintiffs that their predecessor-in-interest had mortgaged ½ share of land measuring 99 Kanal 3 Marlas with Gurdial Singh, Jang Singh-defendants and Bhan Singh son of Santa Singh for an amount of Rs. 6,700/-.

3. It was further stated that Bhan Singh had died and his estate was succeeded by Gurdial Singh and Jang Singh-defendants and they were only mortgagees. It was further pleaded that mortgagees subsequently purchased the share from Harnam Kaur and Punjab Kaur to the extent of 2/7^th share in the suit land and in this manner the integrity of mortgage was broken. The plaintiffs also claimed to have purchased a 1/7^th share of the mortgagor Chaman Singh, and another 1/7^th share of Kartar Kaur from her legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the original mortgagor to the extent of 2/7^th share out of the mortgaged land. It was further pleaded that suit land was allotted in lieu of the mortgage land during consolidation. It was asserted that plaintiffs are entitled to get 2/7^th share out of the total land, proportionate to their 2/7^th share in the mortgage, since the integrity of the mortgage had already broken.

4. It is worth noticing that initially only Gurdial Singh and Jang Singh were made defendants. Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement, raising several preliminary objections regarding non- joinder and mis-joinder of parties, limitation etc. Factum of mortgage was admitted, the defendants contended that Bhan Singh was succeeded not only by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 but also by his mother, Sham Kaur, as a legal heir. After the death of Sham Kaur, the inheritance devolved upon defendant Nos. 1 and 2, as well as two daughters Phimo and Seeto, who were also mortgagors of the suit land. The defendants denied that the integrity of the mortgage has broken and opposed the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to partial redemption of the suit land.

5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. whether plaintiffs are entitled to the redemption of the suit land? If, so, by paying how much amount? OPP

2. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP.

3. Whether suit is barred by limitation ? OPP.

4. Relief.”

6. The learned Court of first instance, after considering respective contention of the parties, decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants holding that in the absence of all the mortgagees as parties, the mortgage could not be allowed to be redeemed. The Court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ claim regarding Phimo and Seeto has become time-barred. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. However, issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly suit was dismissed.

7. On appeal, the findings of learned Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.1990 was set-aside by Appellate Court. It was held that the legal representatives of Bhan Singh should be treated as constructive part