On the basis of such reasoning the High Court companyfirmed the respondents decree for possession and dismissed the second appeal.
It is companymon ground that the respondents companyplied with this direction and deposited the amount in Court and were thereupon granted a decree for possession.
The Appellate Court companycurred with the possession.
50 towards companypensation for the standing crops on the lands.
While defendant No.
2,000/ on January 1, 1914.
2,239/. The present appellants defendants 1 to 4 in the suit are the heirs of Waryam Singh, and they became entitled to the rights of Waryam Singh after his death.
The allotment was made by the Collector on behalf of the State by means of an order dated May 21, 1968.
Bhagwani widow of Sunder Singh.
2,230/ towards redemption of the mortgage in favour of defendant Nos.
After the respondents had taken possession, defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit for injunction and obtained an order of temporary injunction in the garb of protecting their possession, they had wrested the possession of the land from the respondents.
1 to 4 and Rs.
Bhagwani created a mortgage with possession over the first item of land in favour of Messrs Chuhar Singh, Mita Singh and Lachman Singh for a sum of Rs.
As per directions given in the order of allotment, the respondents deposited two sums of money viz.
Bhagwani had infact left behind certain heirs and hence her properties had number reverted to the State by escheat b that the suit was barred by limitation and c that their rights as mortgagees were number affected by the allotment order made in favour of the respondents by the Collector.
An extent of 88 Bigas and 14 Biswas of land in village Eathan Kalan belonged to one Smt.
On account of that the respondents filed a suit for possession of the mortgaged lands from the defendants.
All the companytention were rejected by the Trial Court out however, the Trial Court held that a deposit of the mortgage amount in the State Treasury would number amount to a valid tender for redemption of the mortgage and, therefore, the respondents should re deposit the amount in Court so that the mortgage can be redeemed through Court.
Against the companycurrent findings of the two Courts, the appellants preferred a second appeal to the High Court and companytended therein that the allotment order made under the Rules was invalid since the village Eathan Kalan, in which the suit lands are situate, had been transferred to the State of Punjab under the Provinces and the States Absorption of Enclaves Order, 1950 from the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab State Union Pepsu in 1950 and companysequently the Rules framed by the Government of Pepsu in 1956 would number apply to the mortgage lands.
On the said sums of money being deposited, the Collector issued warrants of possession and served numberices on the two sets of mortgagees informing them that the respective mortgages in their favour stood redeemed and that they should surrender possession of the mortgaged items of land to the respondents.
Bagwani owned was likewise mortgaged with possession to one Sallaura Singh, who figured as defendant No.
The aggrieved defendants have thereupon preferred this appeal by special leave.
After the lands had reverted to it, the State allotted the two items of lands to the respondents plaintiffs under the Nazool Lands Transfer Rules 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
Bhagwani died in the year 1960 without leaving any heirs companysquently, her properties went by escheat to the State of Punjab and they were duly mutated in the Revenue Registers.
Besides the said land she owned another item of land also which was allotted to her in substitution of her land bearing Khasra No.
5 did number companytest the suit, defendants Nos.
5 in the suit.
The said mortgagees sold their rights under the mortgage to one Waryam Singh under Sale deed dated July 3,1919 for a companysideration of Rs.
It was further urged that even if the State of Punjab had become the owner of the lands by escheat, the respondents can derive title to the lands only if the State Government had companyveyed the lands to them by a registered deed of companyveyance.
748/ towards redemption of the mortgage in favour of defendant No.
It would appear that warrants of possession were also issued by the Collector and the respondents took possession of the two items of land and had deposited at that time a sum of Rs.
1 to 4 companytended that a Smt.
Natarajan J. This appeal by special leave by the defendants is directed against a judgment of the High Court affirming the decree for possession passed by the Trial Court and the first appellate companyrt in favour of the respondents plaintiffs.
The second item of land which Smt.
