Mortgagor had filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage and a decree for redemption was passed but as he failed to pay the mortgage amount he lost his ownership right in the house and the house remained in the family of Mool Chand.
The family had ceased to be joint and were in possession of their respective shares.
330 of 1949 under Sections 440, 505 and 332 of IPC was instituted by Baij Nath on 8.7.1949 arraying the defendants as the accused.
On the other hand, companytinuous living of Govind Prasad in the house is established by the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence.
The family was joint at that time.
Two questions arose for determination in the suit a whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove their title over the disputed house b whether the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation in view of the fact that they were number in possession for more than 12 years since 10.7.1928.
Both the parties are closely related to each other and belong to the same family.
This case was decided on 30.4.1952.
The companyrts below as well as the High Court have held that the plaintiffs were owners of the house but they have lost their title to the house as the defendants had perfected their title to the house by adverse possession.
The predecessor in interest of the appellant Saligram had filed a criminal case against Govind Prasad defendant, number represented through his legal representatives, the respondents herein, which was got dismissed by him on 5.7.1929 as is evident from the certified companyy of the application filed by Saligram Exhibit D 1 on the record.
Defendants were found to be in possession since 10.7.1928 and the plaintiffs had lost their right to maintain the suit for recovery of possession by lapse of time.
The story put up by the appellants that the defendants had taken possession on 7.7.1949 is false.
This again shows that the defendant had number companye in possession on 7.7.1949 as was projected by the plaintiffs appellant in the plaint.
Present suit for declaration of title and possession was filed in the year 1955 alleging therein that respondents took forcible possession of the house on 7.7.1949.
The house in dispute came to the share of the predecessor of the appellant Saligram, but Govind Prasad defendant took forcible possession of the same in the year 1928.
It seems that near about 1928 a partition took place between Sukhwasi Lal and Saligram, predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs appellants and defendants respondents.
The companyrts below on appreciation of the evidence, oral as well as the documentary, have held that Govind Prasad and his successors remained in possession of the house ever since 1928 and the story put forth by the appellants and their predecessor that Govind Prasad had taken forcible possession of the suit property on 7.7.1949 was incorrect and false.
Govind Prasad had filed civil suit 1 A of 1950 for partition of the joint Hindu family property in the year 1950 between the two branches.
Defendants respondents were acquitted of the charge with the observation that defendants respondents had number dispossessed the appellant forcibly.
The genealogy tree of the family is as under Mool Chand Died in Samvat 1940 Sukhwasi Lal Saligram died on 15.9.1949 Govind Prasad Died Samvat 2002 Baijnath Plaintiff died on 4.2.1980 Tej Narayan Prayag Naryan Both are legal representatives of the Plaintiff Kishan Shanti Jagdish Swaroop Swaroop Swaroop Defendant Defendant Defendant On 25.2.1879 the original owner mortgaged the house to Mool Chand and his son Sukhwasi Lal.
BHAN, J. Plaintiff Baijnath since deceased number represented by his legal representatives, the appellants herein, filed the suit for declaration and possession of house known as Gadaiya Wali Haveli situated in the town of Bhind.
