A
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
.~~-!:.-
~
v.
RAM RAKHA AND ORS.
·~
FEBRUARY 6, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)
Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 :
..,.
·•
Mortgaged land-Respondents' predecessor-in-interest holding posses-
c
sory mortgage since 1987-88-Declaration . as evacuee property-Union
government's .claim that land belonged to them--Civil suit for declaration by
respondents that after expiry of 60 years they become absolute owners of
land-Held, respondents being in possession of property as mortgagees
through te~ants since 1886-87-By the time the Act came into force land
became irredeemable by original mortgago~Title to land was rightly declared
D to belong to respondents and land cannot be declared as evacuee property
\
nor Government can claim interest in the land as evacuee property.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil ,Appeal No. 350 of
1981.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.80 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in R.S.A. No. 802 of 1980.
Ranbir Yadav for R.S. Suri for the Appellants.
Ms. S. Janani (N.P.) for the Respondents.
'4 .-
A
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Application for substitution and appointment of legal guardian is
ordered.
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, made on May 7, 1980 in RSA
No. 802/80 cpnfirming the judgment of the District Court dated November
-:.1
7, 1979.
The admitted position is that one Gobind Mal, father of the respon-
}
H dents, had possessory mortgage from the holders of the suit land in the
1022
-.
STATE v. RAM RAKHA
1023
year 1887-88. When the land was declared as an evacuee property under A
the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, the Union of India claimed
the land belonged to them. The respondents filed a civil suit for a decla-
ration that after the expiry of the period of 60 years from the date of the
•
mortgage, they have become absolute owners as the mortgage became
irredeemable and as a consequence they are the owner of the property. B
Though the trial Court has dismissed the suit, on appeal, it was reversed
and decree was granted. The High Court in the second appeal confirmed
it by dismissing in limi11e. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
From the evidence on record, it is seen that mutation entries have
been effected to show that the respondents were in possession of the C
property as mortgagees through the tenants. That evidence was cor-
roborated by DW-2, Kanugo and the mutation order DW-2/1. The District
Court also relied upon Jambandi for the year 1887-88. Under those cir-
cumstances, the mutation in regard to year 1896-97 is only referable to the
earlier mortgage of 1886-87. As a consequence, by the time the Act has
come into force, the land became irredeemable by the original mortgagor. D
Resultantly, they had lost title to the typothica. The title to the land was
rightly declared to belong to the respondents and it cannot be declared to
be a evacuee property nor the Government can claim interest in the land
as evacuee property. The decree granted by the District Judge, thqefore,
is according to law and needs no interference.
E
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex