It was numbered by the Trial Court that the predecessor in title were party defendants in the Suit and yet numbere had stepped into the witness box in order to prove that they were the heirs.
Being aggrieved by this Judgment 1st Respondent filed Civil Appeal No.
In this suit 1st Defendant was the son of Ram Charan Sonar.
The 2nd Defendant was the grandson of Swaroop Sonar.
Ramraj and Lakshman were given a right to redeem the mortgage from Hanuman.
On 25th February 1963 two further sale deeds companyfirming the earlier two sale deeds were executed.
149 of 1967.
The Trial Court also held that Ram Charan Teli as well as Ramraj and Lakshman were bona fide purchasers for value without numberice.
The first Appellate Court also held that the documents relied upon by the 1st Respondent viz Ex.
To be remembered that Swaroop Sonar was number a mortgagee under the mortgage deed of 1902.
The Trial Court, which was the best judge of her testimony and demeanor, believed her testimony.
The mortgage was for a fixed period of 10 years.
Lakshamania widow of Narayan Sonar mortgaged two houses and twenty trees in favour of Ram Charan Sonar.
The High Court disbelieves evidence of Smt.
1st Respondent then filed Second Appeal No.
This Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 20th March, 1967.
The first Appellate Court numbered that the only family member who gave evidence was Smt.
On 4th December, 1948 Appellant No.
22 would number establish relationship as the persons who companyld give the best evidence had been available and had number stepped into the witness box.
Lakshamania died on 3rd November, 1908.
The transferee Defendants also took up defence under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The main defences were that the persons from whom 1st Respondent got title were number heirs of Lakshamania and that they had numberright to transfer the equity of redemption.
The first Appellant Court found, on a proper appreciation of evidence, that Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar had been making claims to be owners of the property, ever since the death of Lakshamania, and that numberheir of Lakshamania had refuted this claim.
Cross objections have been filed by the 1st Respondent against directions in the impugned Judgment to have ascertained, amongst others, the state of the different parts or portions of the suit property and improvements made therein and their value.
On 25th August, 1930 family members of Sundarji, who had in the meantime died, entered into an Agreement to Sell the two shops and certain other property to the mortgagee.
The Trial Court numbered that an admitted relative i.e. one Smt.
These were got registered.
The mortgage was for a sum of Rs.
1st March 1960 and 21st March 1960 Sita Ram, Ganesh, Bechni, Rajwanti, Bhoju and Bhuwel, claiming to be the heirs of Smt.
It went to the root of the case.
That Suit was companypromised and on the basis of the companypromise a decree for redemption was passed against Hanuman and in favour of Ram Raj and Lakshman.
Ram Raj and Laxman filed Suit No.
2100 of 1973.
Hanuman was made Defendant No.
20, Ex.
The Trial Court took numbere of the fact that some documents had been relied upon to prove the relationship.
The Trial Court numbered that numbere of the admitted heirs of Lakshamania had, in spite of knowledge of such claims, made any protest or filed a suit.
The Sale Deed was registered on 15th January, 1949.
In an additional written statement filed by Defendants 1 to 4 it was also companytended that on the date the suit was filed the Plaintiff had numbertitle as the earlier sale deeds were invalid and that the subsequent sale deeds of 25th March 1963 did number cure the defect.
On 4th October 1960 i.e. before the registration of the subsequent sale deeds, Respondent No.
This sale property.
Lakshamania.
Thus an interest in excess of the interest of the mortgagee was being created.
The Trial Court also gave a finding that the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent had full knowledge of the transactions of mortgage and sale by Ram Charan Sonar and his brother Swaroop Sonar.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows On 30th August 1902 Smt.
A large number of defences were taken up.
We have seen the sale deed.
The first Appellant Court held that the Suit against the purchasers was barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act.
9 who is the son of Swaroop Sonar sold the southern house to Ramraj and Lakshman.
He had already claimed ownership of this property in suit No, 17 of 1914.
In this Suit Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar had averred, in their written statement, that the suit property had companye to them under an oral Will by Shri Narayan.
The first Appellate Court also numbered that the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent had number stepped into the witness box to prove that they were related to Lakshamania.
Piyari, claiming to be the nearest heir of the husband of Smt.
Also, as indicated above, Swaroop Sonar was number a mortgagee.
It was also claimed that the old houses had fallen down and Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar had, to knowledge of all, companystructed new houses on the land and were occupying those as owners.
It is claimed by the Appellants that Ram Charan Sonar and his brother Swaroop Sonar were already staying in the suit property with Narayan Sonar.
Both the Courts below had rightly numbered that these parties had chosen number to step into the witness box.
Lakshamania.
21 and Ex.
On 12th September 1916 Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar executed a mortgage in favour of one Hanuman.
Sita Ram, Ganesh, Bechni, Rajwanti, Bhoju and Bhuwel were Defendants 8 to 13 respectively.
Mantorani and she had deposed that some of the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were number related.
The Trial Court held, on proper appreciation of evidence, that it had number been proved by the 1st Respondent or on her behalf that her predecessors in title were heirs of Smt.
The first Appellant Court also held that the Suit was time barred so far as the Mortgage Deed of 12th September, 1916 and the Sale Deed of 26th October, 1942 were companycerned.
Lakhan and Mahavir Khandu were Defendants 5 and 6 respectively.
The first Appellate Court numbericed that the Sale Deed dated 26th October, 1942 was for a sum of Rs.
In this Suit objections were sought to be taken by some of the predecessors in title of the present Respondent No.
Lakshamania.
800/ which created an interest in excess of the one held by the alleged mortgagee.
Piyari was number an heir of Shri Narayan or of Smt.
The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation.
After having entered into such an Agreement to Sell the family members of Sundarji sold the said shops to one Lalji Jetha and Kanji Jetha on 10th September, 1930.
That it was purely a question of fact was also numbered by the High Court.
This mortgage was in respect of one of the houses which for sake of companyvenience is called the southern house .
Seven written statements were filed by the various sets of Defendants.
To be numbered that the question whether or number the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were heirs of Smt Laxmina was purely a question of fact.
By two sale deeds dt.
For purposes of this Appeal we do number need to reproduce or deal with all the defences.
17 of 1914 making a claim to the suit property.
This Suit was dismissed on the ground that Smt.
This Suit was also dismissed on the ground that Shri Bharat Sonar was number an heir of Smt.
Laxmina, sold their equity of redemption to the 1st Respondent.
20 and 21 were documents in which Sitaram described himself as son of Paltan.
The said Smt.
Laxmina.
was also on the footing that the sellers were owners of the On 20th December, 1954 Ram Charan Teli sold the house to Lakhan and Mahavir Kandu.
Both the Courts below had companysidered the documents.
Lakshamania.
85 of 1959 against Hanuman for redemption of the mortgage.
Thus the rights of the mortgagor to redeem within the period of 10 years was being affected.
26th October 1942.
The mortgagee filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell and for setting aside the subsequent Sale Deed.
It was for them to aver and prove that their knowledge was within 12 years of the suit.
328 of 1908 and made a claim to the suit property.
They were put in possession of the house.
8 who is the son of Ram Charan Sonar along with Appellant No.
Thus the 1st Respondent and her predecessors had knowledge of this sale.
One Shri Bharat Sonar, claiming to the heir of Smt.
This was refused and, therefore, the 1st Respondent filed the present Suit, i.e. Suit No.
Now he was mortgaging as owner.
The Trial Court held that the 1st Respondent had acquired numberright, title or interest in the suit property and was number entitled to claim redemption.
Laxmina, filed Suit No.
The first Appellate Court thus held that it was number proved that the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were related to Smt.
20, 21 and Exs.
3 of 1961, for redemption of mortgage.
On 26th October, 1942 Ram Charan Sonar sold a part of the other house which for sake of companyvenience is called the numberthern house to one Ram Charan Teli.
The justification sought to be given by the Judge that there was an error of law in excluding documents from companysideration is patently wrong.
Both the Courts below had number excluded the documents from companysideration.
Both the Courts below had given companycurrent findings that it was number proved that the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were related to Smt.
Laxmina, filed Suit No.
Thus as far back as in 1914/1915 Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar set up a title adverse to the estate.
Mantorani gave evidence and stated on oath that some of the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were number heirs of Lakshamania.
With these findings the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 20th March, 1967.
The documents relied upon are Exs.
It was claimed that Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar had perfected title by adverse possession.
1 demanded redemption of the mortgage executed as far back as on 30th August, 1902.
One Smt.
It was further claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.
It was for them to aver and prove that they had numberknowledge of the nature of this transaction.
The mortgagee Hanuman was put in possession of the southern house as a mortgagee.
Ramraj and Lakshman were Defendants 4 and 5 respectively.
The Trial Court numbered that in the mortgage deed and the sale deed executed by the brothers and then by Defendants 1 and 2 they had claimed themselves to be owners.
N. VARIAVA,J. LITTTTTTTJ This Appeal is against an Order dated 13th July 1982 in a Second Appeal No.
2100 of 1973 wherein the High Court has proceeded to appreciate evidence and on questions, purely of fact, overruled companycurrent findings of facts by two Courts below.
