ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment of reversal dated 17.9.2002 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The Additional District Judge, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the suit land measuring 15 Bighas 17 Biswas except the land measuring 1 Bigha mentioned in Khewat No. 2842/1743 as was held vide judgment Ex.PW4/12. The order of the Collector, Khanna dated 28.8.1987 has also been held to be null and void being against the law and facts.
2. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for possession of the suit land and also for declaration that the order dated 28.8.1987 passed by the Collector, Khanna should be declared illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana dismissed the suit. On appeal, the findings have been reversed by the learned lower Appellate Court holding that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant-appellants with the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents and possession was also delivered to them. The lower Appellate Court further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents was not barred by the period of limitation because a decree was obtained by defendant-appellant Bhag Singh in his favour on 9.2.2003 (Bikrami) Ex.PW4/9 delivered by the Court of Naib Nazim Diwani, Bassi in Civil Suit No. 598 titled as ‘Bhag Singh v. Bhana etc’. The learned Lower Appellate Court also held that the plaintiff-respondents are not in possession of the property in dispute as owners. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents, namely Civil Suit No. 608 of 23.11.1987 was decreed holding that the suit land and the order dated 28.8.1987 passed by the Collector, Khanna is null and void.
3. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that the decree to the plaintiff-respondents for extending the period of limitation. According to the learned counsel it must be held that the Civil Suit for redemption is barred as his right to sue for redemption is extinguished. The defendant-appellants have become full owners of the suit property. The aforementioned contention of the defendant-appellants is based on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Banarsi Dass v. Jiwan Ram, A.I.R. 1991 P&H 85.
4. But the contention was rejected by the learned lower Appellate Court on the ground that the judgment Ex.PW/12 crystalises the rights of the parties wherein it was held that the cause of action was to acrue to the defendant-appellants on the death of alienor i.e., Bhana and Inder. Inder expired on 25.1.1987 as is clear from his death certificate Ex.D2 and the mortgage amount was deposited by the defendant-appellants on 21.4.1987 vide receipt Ex.D1 In these circumstances, it was held that the land in dispute is to revert back to the estate of the alienors and the alienees are to lose any subsisting right or interest of the suit property. The aforementioned principles have been laid down in Surjit Singh (deceased) v. Mohinder Pal Singh, (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 475. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere in the view taken by the lower Appellate Court which in law and on facts deserves to be accepted. The appeal is without any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.