http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DAULAT RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAROOP RAM & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   527        1996 SCALE  (5)201

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      This appeal  by special leave arises from the  judgment and order  dated August  25, 1993  made  in  Regular  Second Appeal No.2311/92  by the  Punjab &  Haryana High Court. The appellant laid  this suit  on April  8, 1986 for declaration and possession  of the plaint suit property on the plea that it had  fallen to  his share  through private  partition and thereafter he  has become  the absolute  owner thereof.  The trial Court  as well  as the appellate court disbelieved the evidence which  held that  the appellant is not in exclusive possession. It  was contended  in the appeal before the High Court and repeated in the special leave petition that he had redeemed the  property by himself. Therefore, by subrogation he became  the mortgagee  unless other  co-owner redeem  the mortgage from  him he  remains as  mortgagee  and  the  suit should have been decreed on that basis.      The respondents  have filed  counter affidavit  in that behalf. They  are denying  the allegation that the appellant alone had  redeemed the  mortgage of  one of  the  items  of property. It  was joint redemption by co-owners. It was also pointed out that the trial Court and the appellate Court had gone into  the question  and negatived the contention of the appellant. It  was contended  for the appellant that in view of the  admitted position  of the appellant’s payment of the mortgage amount  to the Commissioner of Custodian of Evacuee Property and in view or entries. for one of the years in the mutation  that  he  was  in  self-cultivation,  it  must  be construed that the appellant alone had redeemed the mortgage thereof. After  subrogation he  became the  mortgagee  until redemption by  the co-owners,  his possession as a mortgagee cannot be  disturbed. We  find no  force in  the contention. Firstly, there  is no  such specific pleadings. Secondly, no such issue  was raised. Even then in view of the evidence on record recorded  by courts  below, they  have gone  into the question, observing thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    "Even if  the minor  contradictions      in their  evidence are  ignored the      documentary evidence  available  on      the record  is sufficient  to  show      that the application for redemption      was moved by all the three brothers      i.    e.    the    plaintiff    and      defendants, and  it was  granted in      their   favour    on   9.2.60.   In      pursuance   of    this   order   of      redemption   the    mutation    was      sanctioned in  Favour  of  all  the      brothers,   who   sent   on   being      recorded  joint   owners  in  joint      possession of  the suit  land  from      1961   towards    and   in    joint      possession of  the   suit land from      1961 onwards  till the  date of the      filing of the suit.           So, the  documentary  evidence      shows that  the suit  land was  got      redeemed  by   all   the   brothers      jointly and they are  Continuing in      joint    possession    and    joint      ownership of  this land  since  the      time of  its redemption.  This land      was mortgaged only for Rs.494/- and      was redeemed  for a   total  sum of      Rs.506/-. So  the evidence  of  the      plaintiff to  the  effect  that  he      spent Rs.4000/- on getting the land      redeemed is also untrue.           Appellate Cort  held that  the      trial  Court   has   thus   rightly      concluded after carefully screening      of  the  evidence  that.  the  land      described in  the head-note  (d) of      the plaint  was got redeemed by all      three brothers  and they are owners      in possession  of the land in equal      shares.           So far  as the statement of PW      4 Kailash Chand is concerned, it is      true that from his statement. it is      proved       that   the   plaintiff      deposited the  amount of  Rs.506/-,      but  on   whose   behalf   he   had      deposited  this   amount,  is   not      clear, because  this  fact  can  be      proved only by the Treasury Voucher      which  has   not  been   placed  on      records  nor  PW  4  Kailash  Chand      has brought  the treasury  voucher.      Exhibit  P-10   is  the   order  of      redemption  which  shows  that  the      suit land  was  redeemed  by  Sarup      Ram, Daulat  Ram  and  Room  Singh,      sons of Prem Singh collectively.           Ex. P-4  is  Khasra  Girdawari      for the  period Swani  1961 to Rabi      1985 and  this Khasra  Girdawari is      in the  name of  plaintiff  as  co-      sharer. Ex.  P-5 is  the  Jamabandi      for the year 1962-63 which show the      possession of  Daulat  Ram  as  Co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    sharer over  the aforesaid land and      all the three brothers are shown as      co-owners. In  the column  No.12 of      this document  mutation  No.701  of      redemption    of     mortgage    is      mentioned. In ex. P-6 Jamabandi for      the  year  1969-70  all  the  three      brothers are  shown as  owners  and      plaintiff   is    shown    as    in      cultivating possession.           As a  result of  my  foregoing      discussion it  is not  proved  that      the   plaintiff   alone   got   the      aforesaid land redeemed and that he      (plaintiff)   is    in   continuous      cultivating  possession   over  the      said land.  Of  course,  possession      exclusively from  1961 to 1970, but      that is too  as a co-sharer."      In view  of this  evidence  and  findings  it  must  be concluded that  all the co-sharers have jointly redeemed the property and  thereafter it  become a  joint property of the brothers.  The   appellant  no   longer  a   mortgagee.  The concurrent findings are that there was no  private partition in which  the property  claimed to have been allotted to him was specifically  negatived by  the courts  below, we do not think that  there is  any ground warranting our interference into the  matter. The  appeal is  accordingly dismissed.  No costs.