ORDER
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is defendants’ regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Faridkot by which appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated October 27,1987 was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts as noticed by the Addl. District Judge are as under:-
Jai Singh etc. filed a suit against Dhan Kaur etc. for the declaration that the plaintiffs have become the owners in possession of the land bearing khasra Nos. 83/23/2(5-6), 24(7-7), 25(0-18), measuring 13 Ks. lim. and 3/4th share of land measuring 34 Ks. 7.m. out of 45 K. 16 M. out of land bearing Khasra Nos. 26/21 (8-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Rode, tehsil Moga, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78, on the ground that Rulia son of Fauja Singh sold mortgagee rights in respect of the part of the suit land in favour of Dasondha Singh son of Vir Singh, prcdecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs vide mutation No. 1449 dated 19.5.1920, Santa Singh son of Rulia Singh mortgaged with possession some of the suit land in favour of Dasondha Singh predecessor of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 4005 dated 29.5.1946. The present suit land was carved out from the. land which was mortgaged by Rulia Singh and Santa Singh during consolidation. Dasondha Singh has died and he has been succeeded by the Plaintiffs. Santa Singh died leaving behind Chanda Singh, his only son of Chand Singh who died on 21.7.1982, leaving behind Dhan Kaur defendant No. 1 as widow of his pre-deceased son Malkiat Singh. It is alleged by the defendant No. 2 Jang Singh that Chanda Singh executed a Will in his favour. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 allege themselves to be the vendees of a part of the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed. So, the defendants 3 to 5 have been made as a party. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by lapse of time as the defendants/mortgagors have lost their right of redemption. The plaintiffs filed a suit which was decreed on 12.11.1982 and it was held that the plaintiffs have become . the owners of the suit land by lapse of time and that suit was decreed against Dhan Kaur only defendant No. 2 on the basis of alleged Will and defendants No. 3 and 5 on the basis of alleged sale deed, started denying the ownership of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their claim but they did not, so the plaintiffs filed the suit.
3. Defendant Dhan Kaur filed written statement alleging that the land in dispute is in possession of Chanda Singh for the last 30 days and they have become the owners by adverse possession of the land. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest never remained in possession of the suit land for the 1st 12 years. The suit is time barred. It is also alleged that Chanda Singh executed valid Will in their favour. Defendants 3 to 5 purchased the part of the land from Chanda Singh and they are in possession of the same. The plaintiffs got a decree by fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Defendant No. 2 Jang Singh contested the suit on the ground that previously Chanda Singh was in possession of the land for the last more than 30 years. Their possession was open, hostile and adverse to whole of the world and so, he has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest never remained in possession of the suit land and Chanda Singh executed valid will in his favour.
5. Defendants 3 to 5 also contested the suit on the ground that Chanda Singh became the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Chanda Singh mortgaged with possession some part of the land in the year 1966 to defendant No.4 and defendants No. 3 to 5 purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 24.9.1973. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the suit for declaration is not maintainable ? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of the parties and causes of actions ? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit land was carried out in consolidation proceedings, in lieu of the land previously held by Santa Singh son of Rulia Singh ? OPP
5. Whether the mortgagee rights in respect of rest of the suit land were sold by Rulia Singh son of Fauja Singh in favour of Dasondha Sigh predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 1449 or so ? OPP.
6. Whether the suit land excepting the land covered vide mutation No.1449 aforesaid was mortgaged with possession by Santa Singh son of Rulia Singh in favour of Dasondha Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 4005 ? OPP
7. Whether Dasondha Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagee and the suit land was never redeemed ? If so to effect ? OPP
8. Whether Dasondha Singh was succeeded by Sawan Singh who is further succeeded by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have thus become the owners in possession of the suit land by lapse of time ? OPP.
9. What is the effect of decree dated 12.11.82 in civil suit No. 337 passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants No. 1 ? OPP.
10. Whether Chanda Singh, Santa Singh, had been in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years and had been in adverse possession therein? If so, to what effect? OPD.
11. Whether the defendant No. 2 has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession ? OPD.
11-A Whether the defendants 2 to 5 have purchased part of the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 24.9.1973 as alleged in para No. 12 the written statement? If so, to what effect ? OPD.
12. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP.
13. Relief.
7. Issue No. 1 to 3 and 11 were not pressed. Issue Nos. 4 to 9 and 12 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue Nos 10 and 11-A were decided against the defendants and consequently the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
8. The claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was that Rulia Singh sold mortgagee rights in respect of the land in favour of Dasondha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff vide Mutation No. 1449 dated 19.5.1920. Similarly, Santa Singh mortgaged with possession some of the suit land in favour of Dasondha Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs vide Mutation No. 4005 dated 29.5.1936. Since, the mortgagors or their heirs did not get the land redeemed within the prescribed time, hence the plaintiffs have become owners of the land by lapse of time. The trial Court on the basis of legal evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants did not bring any suit for redemption of the property within the prescribed period i.e. since in the present case new limitation Act had come into force from January 4, 1964. The . suit for redemption if at all, could be filed within a period of 7 years from the coming into enforcement of Limitation Act, 1963. Admittedly, defendants did not file any such suit up to 1.1.1971 and so their right to get the land redeemed stood lapsed. With a view to get rid of this obstacle, counsel for the appellants referred to Article 63 of the Limitation Act and so contended that it was incumbent upon the mortgagees to file suit for fore-closure within a period of 30 years. Since no suit was filed by the mortgagee who according to the appellants are not in possession of the suit property, cannot lay any claim as sought for.
9. Plea of the learned counsel is wholly misconceived. Mortgagors or. their predecessors could file a suit for redemption of property in terms of Article 61 of the Limitation Act. Since, in the present case, period of redemption had been curtailed as per provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, such a suit could be instituted within a period of seven years next after the commencement of the Act. In the present case, the same stood expired on January 1, 1971. Accordingly, mortgagors’ right to redeem the property stood extinguished in terms of Section 27 of the Act.
10. In view of this factual position, present plaintiffs filed a suit against Dhan Kaur predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants/appellants seeking a declaration that they have become owners of the suit land by lapse of time and the said suit was decreed on 12.11.1982. Present suit was necessitated as defendants laid claim with regard to its owner-ship as well as possession on the basis of alleged will. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the plaintiffs had perfected their title even on the basis of the earlier decree dated 19.12.1982. Findings of the Courts below does not call for any interference and are accordingly affirmed.
11. Since, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/appellants ceased to be the owner of the suit property on 1.1.1971, any sale deed executed by some of the appellants in respect of the suit property, does not effect the rights of the plaintiffs in any manner and any such sale, is no nest qua them. Findings on the point of possession, being finding of fact does not call for interference in the regular second appeal. Even on perusal of the relevant documentary evidence adduced by the parties, there is no manner of doubt that conclusion arrived at by the Addl. District Judge is perfectly legal.
12. The Courts below while examining the case of the defendants have held that Will dated 15.9.1971 to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances for the reasons that Chandra Singh executed ceased to be the owner of the suit property on 1.1.1971 and thus, had no right to bequeath the suit land to Jana Siring. it has further been held that Janga Singh is not related to deceased Chanda Singh. Counsel, however, urges that sweeping conclusion with regard to validity of Will; especially when there was no specific issue; was wholly uncalled for and thus, deserve to be deleted. In find merit in this prayer of the appellants. Thus, without prejudice to what has been stated in the context of the present dispute the validity of Will with regard to any other property of Chanda Singh deceased will be gone into by courts/authorities independently of the observation made in the impugned judgement.
13. In view of what has been stated above, appeal is wholly devoid of merit and consequently the same is dismissed. Parties will, however, bear their own costs.