This appeal concerned a suit for possession via redemption of mortgaged land. The Court upheld the lower courts' judgments, relying on revenue records (jamabandi) proved under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, dismissing the challenge to the property's mortgage status.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
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.
YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1
RSA-2724-2016 (O&M)
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2724-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.12.2018
Amar Singh and others
... Appellants
Versus
Badami and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
The appellants-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgaged land before the trial Court as well as before the lower Appellate Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsdefendants submitted that on simple and plain reading of the pleadings, it revealed that the property had already redeemed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. In such circumstances, the incorrect entry in the revenue record would not create the nature of the property as a mortgagee, rather the defendants were the owner.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as Ex.PW3/A, jamabandi for the year 2004-05 reflected the plaintiffs to be mortgagors and the defendants mortgagees in respect of Khasra No.94, Khatoni No.102, Rect. No.20, Killa No.16/1, measuring 5 kanals 7 marals.
YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2724-2016 (O&M) 2
The aforementioned jamabandi has been proved in view of presumption as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination.
Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.
15.12.2018 ( AMIT RAWAL ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law regarding the maintenance of the suit for possession by way of redemption of mortgaged land.
Whether the entries in the revenue record (jamabandi) create a presumption that the defendants are mortgagees contrary to appellants' pleadings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Singh and others
Badami and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
