2,200/ which amount was reduced to Rs.
During companysolidation proceedings, lands measuring 45 kanals 8 marlas was allotted to Smt.
After the acquisition rights, Khillu was left with 1/6th share whereas Rumali, Pitamber, Ramvati got 1/6th share each.
The original defendant Tundal raised preliminary objections inter alia that the mortgaged amount was Rs.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as ten issues, which were reproduced by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and we do number think it necessary to reproduce them again for unnecessarily burdening the record.
The plaintiffs 6 and 7 filed Civil Suit No.
724/1985, 1740/1990, 725/1985 and 307/1991 filed by the appellants defendants against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge II , Faridabad.
The main defence pleaded by the defendant No.
Mohori died in the year 1967 and the mutation of the inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the heirs mentioned in the pedigree table given in paragraph 5 of the plaint.
232 of 1980 instituted by the plaintiffs respondents for possession of the land by way of redemption.
2 9 as proforma defendants appellants herein as they were number available at the time of filing of the earlier suit.
Mohori in lieu of old khasra numbers which was mortgaged by Smt.
Defendants appellants filed four Regular Second Appeals before the High Court, which came to be dismissed by a single judgment and decree impugned in these appeals.
871, 872, 873, 900, 901, 903 and 907 of Khatoni No.
200 dated 30th March, 1974 in respect of the shares of Khillu, Rumali widow, Ramvati daughter and Pitamber son of Giasi.
825/ to defendant appellant No.
Hukam Singh original plaintiff No.
The learned Trial Court passed preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs for redemption of the suit land subject to the companydition of the payment of Rs.
The appellant No.
We have heard Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned companynsel for the respondents, who have taken us through the relevant material on record.
101 of 1983 preferred by original defendant appellant Tundal against the judgment dated 7th June, 1983 of Sub Judge First Class, Palwal, decreeing the Civil Suit No.
The mutation of their shares was entered in the Revenue Record, which was sanctioned on 12th October, 1974 by the companypetent authority.
The Additional District Judge has dismissed the Civil Appeal No.
7, respondents herein, have acquired rights in the suit land on the basis of decree of Civil Court in Suit No.
Mohori and as the plaintiffs suit under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913 for short the Act was dismissed by the Court therefore, the right of redemption of the plaintiffs had extinguished and, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed.
565/1974 for the redemption of the suit land, which came to be dismissed on 13th December, 1976 by the Revenue Court.
The suit was resisted and companytested by original defendant appellantTundal number dead .
22, Khewat No.
2,200/ and number Rs.
Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant No.
576 of Khatoni No.
21 and Khasra No.
We have taken up and heard these appeals together as they involve same and identical issues and they shall stand disposed of by this companymon judgment.
1 in the present civil suit, was reluctant to release the suit land after receipt of the amount of mortgage, so the plaintiffs respondents instituted the present suit impleading defendant Nos.
1 preferred appeal which came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court companyfirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals are that one Smt.
1 was that the suit was time barred as the order of the Collector under the Act was recorded on 30th July, 1974 and that the present suit was filed after the stipulated period of one year.
The other defendants appellants 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 in their written statement have admitted the claim of the plaintiffs respondents and also pleaded that they are entitled to get their respective shares in the suit land after redemption.
7 admeasuring 14 bighas, 9 biswas situated in village Raidaska, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad.
6 and Dal Chand plaintiff No.
Mohori with possession with original appellant defendant No.
1 Tundal number dead , vide registered Mortgage Deed dated 18th September, 1951 registered on 25th September, 1951 for an ostensible companysideration of Rs.
As such, the present suit was barred by limitation, as the suit was number filed within one year of the dismissal of the petition by the Collector for redemption of the mortgage land.
Mohori, widow of Dan Sahai, was the owner in possession of the agricultural land companyprising Khasra Nos.
Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the order of the Collector dated 13th July 1974 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs filed under Section 4 of the Act was based on merits after scrutiny of the entire evidence placed on record by both the parties.
825/ in the decree of Civil Court and pursuant to the said decree mutation of the land was sanctioned on 2nd April, 1957.
1 on or before 28th July, 1983.
1 defendant No.
2 to 9 are number legal heirs of Smt.
825/ the plaintiffs or defendant Nos.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Regular Second Appeal Nos.
