RSA No. 3578 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3578 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 Gurnam Singh ......Appellant Versus Harvinder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the land and for possession by redemption on payment of mortgage amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was decreed. The plaintiff is owner of 87 kanals 14 marlas of land. Out of the said land, land measuring 43 kanals 9 marlas was mortgaged in favour of Sukhdev Singh defendant No. 2 vide mortgage deed dated 24.5.1993. Defendant No. 1 claims to have purchased property from the plaintiff, but there is no such document ever executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that if any document is produced by defendant No. 1 in respect of the purchase, then the said document is RSA No. 3578 of 2009 [2] forged and fabricated. Since the possession of defendant No. 2 was that of a mortgagee, therefore, the plaintiff claimed possession after redemption of the mortgage as well. Defendant No.1, who is in appeal, has in written statement denied the ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon registered sale deeds dated 10.10.1994 in respect of the land measuring 78 kanals 18 marlas alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant-appellant. However, the originals of the two sale deeds were not produced. Though, the certified copies of the said sale deeds were produced as Exhibit D.1 and D.2, but the same were not found to be executed by the plaintiff so to convey a valid title in favour of the appellant. In view of the said finding, the suit was decreed. Such finding has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant could not raise any meaningful argument to dispute the finding recorded by the Courts below that the sale deedd dated 10.10.1994 were executed by the plaintiff so as to convey valid title in favour of the appellant. In view of such finding, the appellant cannot claim any title over the suit property. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 7.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE