SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute between the parties in this petition for special leave to appeal is in respect of a house situate in Gujrat City, It was evacuee property and was transferred to the respondent by the settlement authorities. On 27-5-1960, she mortgaged it with possession with the petitioner for a sum Rs.6,000. Later. By a sale-deed dated 21-11-1966, she allegedly sold it to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.7,000.
2. On 2-1-1984, she filed a civil suit seeking declarations to the effect that she was still the owner of the house in dispute and that the sale-deed allegedly executed by her was bogus and a forgery.
By way of consequential relief, she sought possession of the house on payment of the mortgage amount.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. After considering the evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the sale-deed was a forgery. Accordingly, it decreed the suit and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the house to the respondent after receiving the mortgage amount and the expenses he had incurred in reconstructing the same. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge at Gujrat. He then filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though the sale- deed had been found to be a forgery, yet there was no dispute about the genuineness of the mortgage deed. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage deed the right of redemption could not be exercised before the expiry of 40 years. That being so, the direction given by the Courts that he should surrender the possession of the house after receiving the mortgage amount, even though the period of 40 years had not expired, was clearly illegal.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
The direction already given by this Court for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession to continue during the pendency of the appeal.