' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---This revision petition impugns the judgment and decree dated 9- 9-2000, passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, filed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1993, whereby the suit filed by the respondents for declaration to the effect that they are owner-in-possession of the land, described in the head-note of the plaint, on' the basis of lapse of 60 years as mortgagees in possession, was decreed. .
2. According to the plaint, the predecessor of the petitioners-defendants mortgaged the suit-land and mutation of mortgage was sanctioned on 15-1-1998; despite the lapse of 60 years the petitioners-defendants did not get redeemed the said mortgage and thus with the afflux of time they became owners in possession of the suit-land.
' The petitioners-defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It was admitted that the mortgage was created by their predecessor in favour of the predecessor of the respondents- plaintiffs; however the same was redeemed after the payment of the mortgage money and also possession of the land was obtained after redeeming the mortgage.
3. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondents. He recorded a finding that the predecessor of the petitioners had mortgaged the property through mutation dated 15-1-1908; the same had not been redeemed therefore by expiry of 60 years the respondents-plaintiffs have become owner of the suit-land. The contention of the petitioners that they had got the land redeemed on payment of mortgage price and they are in possession was rejected by the trial Court. The appeal filed thereagainst by the petitioners was also dismissed by maintaining the finding of the trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants contends that during the pendency of the appeal the matter was compromised between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Statements of respondents Nos.1 and 2 were recorded on 21-6-1995 and 15-10-1996; respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Fazal and Ghulam Rasool received an amount of Rs,1,50,000 and expressed no objection to the acceptance of the appeal in favour of the petitioners. Haji Bashir, respondent, got himself impleaded as respondent No,3 in the appeal on 4-3-1996 claiming himself to have obtained a decree for specific performance in his favour and against respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 12-6-1995. The said decree in favour of respondent No,3 was challenged by the petitioners in Civil Court under section 12(b), C.P.C. Therefore the judgments of both the Courts below are not sustainable under the law.
5. The controversy between the parties is regarding the land, which was admittedly mortgaged through a mutation in the year 1908, and the same was not redeemed by the petitioners. It is admitted position on the record that the land was not redeemed by the petitioners. With the afflux of time the respondents after expiry of 60 years have become owner of the land in dispute. In this view of the matter, the decree awarded by the trial Court in favour of the respondents was in accordance with law. No doubt the compromise was effected between respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioners before the disposal of the appeal, but till then a valid decree was existing in favour of Haji Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,3 and no compromise has been effected between the petitioners and respondent No,3. Simply because an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been filed is no ground to set aside the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge.
' For what has been discussed above, this petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.