Single bench appeal challenging a suit for redemption and possession of mortgaged land. The court affirmed the lower courts' decision relying on its own Full Bench precedent as it remained subsisting without a Supreme Court stay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vinod kumar 2014.05.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.4784 of 2012 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
*********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4784 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:06.05.2014
Baldev Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Bohar Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. S.C.Arora, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. D.S.Malwai, Advocate, for the respondent. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J . (Oral)
The plaintiff filed the suit for possession by way of redemption of land measuring 7 kanal 8 marlas, being 1/6th share out of land measuring 44 kanal 10 marlas, falling in Khewat No.299, Khatauni No.631, Rect. No.79, Killa no.4(5-8), 5/1(4-1), 7(6-8), Rect. No.97, Killa No.11/2(7-1), 20 (8-0), 21(8-0) Rect. No.100 Killa no.1(5-2) vide jamabandi for the year 2002-03, situated in the revenue estate of village Khokhar, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib on payment of `4,500/-.
The case of the defendant, however, was that he is the mortgagee of Ajaib Singh by way of mortgage deed dated 16.05.1986 and is in possession. It is submitted that since the time for redemption has expired, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit.
RSA No.4784 of 2012 (O&M)
[ 2 ]
vinod kumar 2014.05.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
After filing replication by the plaintiff, the Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff following the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) PLJ 1.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said judgment of this Court is already sub-judice before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008. It is also submitted that the mortgage deed dated 13.05.1968 by which the plaintiff had mortgaged the suit land in favour of Ajaib Singh is not on record, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that though the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan's case (supra) is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, but there is no stay therein and the said judgment is still holding the field. As regards the mortgage deed, it is submitted that in the mortgage deed dated 16.05.1986 executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of Baldev Singh (defendant), there is a specific reference that Ajaib Singh had taken the land in dispute on mortgage from Bohar Singh for `4,500/- with possession.
I have heard counsel for the parties and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal because the mortgage has already been proved, may be from the mortgage deed dated 16.05.1986 in which there is a specific reference that
RSA No.4784 of 2012 (O&M)
vinod kumar 2014.05.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
the mortgagor Ajaib Singh is himself a mortgagee of Bohar Singh/plaintiff and to whom the possession was delivered at the time of mortgage.
Thus, I am of the considered opinion that since the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan's case (supra) is still holding the field as and there is no stay by the Supreme Court, therefore, the judgment
in Ram Kishan's case (supra) could be followed.
Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as no question of law is found to have been involved therein.
May 06, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the limitation defence filed by the mortgagee bars the plaintiff's suit for possession by redemption.
Whether the lower courts' reliance on the Full Bench judgment in Ram Kishan's case should be upheld despite the matter being sub judice before the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) PLJ 1Followed¶22
Baldev Singh
Bohar Singh
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
