AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—This appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is by one Avtar Singh who is successor-in-interest of
plaintiff Sawirider Singh alias Surinder Singh (for brevity, ''Sawinder Singh'') son of Hakam Singh who had originally Hied the suit for possession
by redemption of 1/2 share of southern side of the house situated at Khui Waii Gali, Mohalla Simble, Batata. During the pendency of the suit, the
mortgage was redeemed vide receipt dated 25.5.1994 and the suit filed by Sawinder Singh the original plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage in
respect of the suit house was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed as infructuous. The trial Court further pointed out that during the
pendency of the suit Sawinder Singh has sold his share in the disputed house to Avtar Singh and appellant Avtar Singh was substituted as plaintiff
vide order dated 18.12.1993. Both the Courts have concurrently found that mortgage had been redeemed by Jasbir Kaur vide receipt dated
25.5.1994 after purchasing the share of defendant-respondent 1 Gurbachan Kaur. It has also been held that nothing survives in the suit once the
mortgage is redeemed by the attorney of defendant-respondent 1 Gurbachan Kaur. The facts are made absolutely near by the Additional District
Judge in his judgment which reads as under:-
The undisputed facts are that Hakam Singh was owner of the house in dispute and he mortgaged the same with possession to Sulakhan Singh vide
mortgage deed dated .0.2.1960, Ex.P.1. Hakam Singh had died and was succeeded by plaintiff, defendants Nos. 6 to 9. Sulakhan Singh also died
and was succeeded by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. It may be added that defendant No. 1 who is the wife of mortgagee is also daughter of Hakam
Singh, the mortgager. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Bui and Banso daughters of Hakam Singh sold their shares in the house in dispute to Jasbir Kaur wife
of Joginder Singh defendant No. 6 vide sale deed dated 13.12.1991 Ex.D.1 and thus Jasbir Kaur has become one of the co-mortgagee. It is the
case of the defendants that said Jasbir Kaur got redeemed the land. The perusal of the receipt Ex.D.8 written on the back side of the mortgage
deed Ex.P.1 shows that house was redeemed by the mortgagees through their attorney on 25.5.1994 and thus the mortgage stands redeemed.
Thus the mortgage has come to an end on 25.5.1994. In the circumstances, the learned lower court has rightly held that the suit for redemption of
the house has become infructuous.
It was vehemently contended by Mr. Pardip Kumar, that there is no daughter by the name of Banso of Hakam Singh and Joginder Singh husband
of Jasbir Kaur forged power of attorney and executed the sale deed in favour of his wife Jasbir Kaur which is illegal and void. He has further
contended that Harbans Kaur one of the daughters of Hakam Singh sold her share vide sale deed dated 25.11.1996 and similarly the other
daughter namely Bholi sold her share vide sale deed dated 13.3.1991 and they were not competent to again execute the sale deed regarding their
share in the house in dispute and therefore, the sale deed Ex.D.1 executed in favour of Jasbir Kaur is null and void....
Mr. M.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has remained unable to advance any argument, which may persuade me to take a view
different than the one taken by the Courts below. Once the mortgage is redeemed by one of the co-mortgagee, then the relief of possession by
redemption of mortgage, claimed by the plaintiff-appellant cannot be granted. Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the findings of facts
recorded by both the Courts below. No question of law much less the substantive question of law has been raised. The findings are based on
evidence and it cannot be said that the approach adopted by both the courts below is perfunctory in character. Therefore, the appeal is without
any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.