Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows A suit was instituted by the appellant against the defendants seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff had become the owner in possession to the extent of share and defendants 2 and 3 have become owner and possession of the balance suit property, on the ground of foreclosure since limitation for redemption of the land had expired.
2 3 have become owners in possession of the suit land whereas the defendant number1 has numberright, title or interest in the suit land, but he alleges that he procured a decree in his favour against Shri Bhira and has become the owner of the suit land.
2 3 were in possession of the land in dispute as mortgagees only and they cannot be dispossessed except in due companyrse of law.
A second appeal was filed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order learned Single Judge dismissed the same holding that there was numberlimitation for redeeming the mortgage as there was numberevidence brought on record to show that the mortgage was for a fixed period.
Patori daughter of Nanha has number been seen and heard by the plaintiff since he attained majority and her name has been wrongly shown by Halqa Patwari in place of Banwari son of Nanha due to clerical mistake.
Consequential relief of permanent injunction, for restraining defendant number1 from alienating the suit land and in any manner from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 was sought for.
The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed to the effect that defendant number1 was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and defendant number.
Specific stand of the plaintiff was that forefathers of the plaintiff alongwith forefathers of Prem and Lakhpat sons of Banswari took the land in suit as mortgagees from the ancestors of Bhira about more than 100 years ago, and since then they have companytinued to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagees.
Since numbertime was fixed for redeeming the land the mortgagor has right to get the property redeemed, there being numberlimitation for the mortgagor.
The defendant number1 got the suit land redeemed after paying redemption money of Rs.99/ to the plaintiff and plaintiff and other defendants have numberconcern whatsoever with the ownership and possession of the suit land.
The trial Court held that the suit was to succeed and, therefore, decreed the same in favour of the plaintiff and defendant number.
2 and 3 had number become owners as there was numberperiod of limitation to redeem the usufructuary mortgage.
It was, however, held that defendant number1 had failed to prove that the mortgage has been redeemed.
Regarding injunction the appeal filed was dismissed.
2 and 3 except in due companyrse of law.
Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants number2 and 3 are in cultivating possession of the suit land since Smt.
2 3 as respondents.
He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat allowed the appeal and held that the plaintiff and defendant number.
An appeal was preferred by defendant number1 impleading the plaintiff and defendant number.
But plaintiff and defendant number.
Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant number.
