Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Ram And Ors vs Moji And Ors on 17 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126 RSA-749-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 04.03.2025
Pronounced on : 17.03.2025
Daya Ram and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Moji and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 to
8, 11 and 12 (defendant-appellants) challenging the judgment and decree
dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree
dated 02.12.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of
agricultural land measuring 15 Kanals 14 Marlas as fully described in the
plaint on payment of Rs.100/-. It was averred in the plaint that the
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had mortgaged the
suit land with possession about 100 yeas ago for a consideration of Rs.100/-.
The interest and mesne profits of the land was to be adjusted against each
other and deemed to be equal. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It
was further averred that the consolidation proceedings took place in village
Jondhan Khurd in the year 1960-61 and the mortgaged suit land was also
partitioned during the consolidation and the suit land was allotted to the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035559
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and other co-owners
in lieu of old khasra numbers. It was further contended that the defendants
were in possession of the suit land as mortgagees and they have been asked
to admit the claim of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 regarding the suit land,
however, they refused to do so. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement
raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of
action and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 not approaching the Court with
clean hands. It was contended that there is no connection inter se between
the persons who allegedly created the mortgage and the plaintiff-respondent
No.1. It was further the case set up that the predecessor-in-interest of the
defendants had purchased the land for a sale consideration of Rs.95/- against
receipt, however, the receipt was lost. It was also denied that the
predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff-respondent No.1 were the owners of the
suit land. The mortgage money of Rs.100/- was also denied. Replication was
not filed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession by way of redemption of agricultural land
detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
in the present form ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no
cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material
facts from the Court ? OPD
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035559
5. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of defendants
had purchased the suit property ? OPD
6. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019
decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed by defendant
Nos.1 to 9, 11 and 12, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
02.12.2023. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that there are no details of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had not been able to
prove on record that the property was mortgaged by his predecessor-in-
interest. No pedigree table had been placed on record connecting the present
plaintiff-respondent No.1 to the predecessor-in-interest. It is further the
contention that no details of the old khasra numbers had been given in the
pleadings and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case both the Courts had concurrently held that
the revenue record produced by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the form of
jamabandis (Ex.P1 to Ex.P-13 and Ex.P15 to Ex.P17) from the years 1960-
61 to 2014-15 as well as Fard Badar (Ex.P14) and Khatauni Pamaish and
Khatauni Istemal (Ex.P18 and Ex.P19) reveal the name of the ancestors of
the defendants as mortgagees and in cultivating possession whereas the
predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 have been shown in
the column of ownership. After consolidation new khasra numbers were
assigned against old khasra numbers, which was also clear from the
Khatauni Istemal and the Khatauni Pamaish as well as jamabandis for the
years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1966-67 and 1971-72 wherein the predecessor-in-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035559
interest of the defendants have been shown to be mortgagees. In the
jamabandi for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P5), the name of the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 is reflected in the column of ownership depicting him to be the owner
to the extent of 1/4th share as mortgagor whereas Mangtu, Prabhu and
Shobha Chand have been reflected as mortgagees. The jamabandi for the
year 2014-15, which was produced on record as Ex.P17, also reflected the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 as having 1/4th share as mortgagor and Mangtu etc.
were reflected as mortgagees. On the other hand, the defendant-appellants
were unable to prove that they had purchased the property and that they were
in possession as owners rather than mortgagees. Even before this Court
learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any evidence to
counter the evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. In the face of the
findings recorded by both the fact finding Courts, there is no scope for any
interference by this Court. No credible and reliable evidence has been
highlighted by the counsel for the defendant-appellants for this Court to take
a contrary view from the one taken by both the Courts. In view thereof, no
fault can be found with the findings returned by both the Courts concerned.
No other point was argued.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
17.03.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
