IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 RSA-681-2008(O&M)

Date of decision: 22.12.2025 Vidya Rattan & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mahender Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate Mr. Jatin Sehra, Advocate for respondents No.2(iii) and (iv).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiffs are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellants for possession by way of redemption, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The case, as pleaded by the appellants in the plaint was that Puran Chand, Girdhari Lal, Ishwar Dayal (father of the plaintiffs), and Ugar Sain were all owners in possession of the shop in dispute. All the aforesaid owners had executed a registered Mortgage Deed dated 11.11.1971 mortgaging suit shop with possession to Karam Chand/defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, defendant No.3 inducted defendant No.2/Ram Chander as his tenant vide Rent Note dated 8.12.1971 for the period upto 07.03.1972. Subsequently, Karam Chand transferred the mortgagee right in favour of defendant No.4/Lachhman Dass vide Mortgage Deed dated 01.03.1976. Defendant No.4 further sold his mortgagee rights in favour of defendant No.1/Mahender Kumar vide registered Deed dated 21.10.1993. All this while, defendant No.2 continued as tenant. In the meantime, vide Suit No.129 decided on 28.04.1976 a Family Settlement was arrived at amongst Puran Chand, Girdhari Lal, Ishwar Dayal and Ugar Sain; as per which, the disputed shop fell to the share of Ishwar Dayal. Plaintiffs are the Legal Heirs of Ishwar Dayal. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed the instant Suit on 19.11.1999 to get the shop redeemed and free from all encumbrances on payment of Rs.2,000/- to defendant No.1.

3. Upon notice, the Suit was contested by the defendant No.2 Ram Chander through his LRs by filing written statement stating that the Mortgage Deed was a sham transaction. It was not disputed that Ishwar Dayal was owner in possession of the shop in question. However, it was denied that defendant No.3 had inducted defendant No.2 as tenant. Rather, it was contended that Ishwar Dayal had inducted defendant No.2 Ram Chander as tenant in the shop; and after the death of Ram Chander, his Legal Representatives have been tenants in possession of the disputed shop. It was further contended that defendant No.2 was in physical possession of the shop in dispute prior to 08.12.1971. It was denied that defendant No.2 had executed a Rent Note in favour of defendant No.3. Rather, it was pleaded that Ishwar Dayal might have obtained the signatures of defendant No.2 Ram Chander on some false pretext, but Ram Chander never signed any Rent Note.

Accordingly, dismissal of the Suit was prayed for.

4. Defendants No.1 and 3 to 5 failed to appear in the Suit despite service. As such, they were proceeded against ex parte.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2006: - “1. Whether the suit property was mortgaged in favour of defendant no. 3, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether defendant no. 2 was inducted as tenant over the demised premises? OPP

3. Whether defendant no. 3 sold the mortgagee rights to defendant no. 4 as alleged? OPP

4. Whether defendant no. 4 further launched the mortgagee rights in favour of defendant no. 5? OPD

5. Whether the property in question fallen in the shares of Girdhari Lal, Ishwar Dayal and Ugar Sain in a family settlement, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has redeemed the shop in question as mortgagor? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the property in question as detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint upon the payment of Rs. 2000/- to defendant no. 1?0PD

8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of act