RSA No.3561 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3561 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.01.2011 Haryana Financial Corporation .. Appellant Versus Vipin Jain and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr.Puneet Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were owners-in-possession of the suit property. It was further prayed that the defendant-Corporation be restrained from dealing with the property in dispute to effect recovery of loan amount. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they had purchased the suit property from Jati Ram and Naresh Kumar Jain vide sale deed dated 25.01.1990. The plaintiffs were put in possession of the land purchased by them. Later on, the plaintiffs came to know that M/s Shree Krishan Cement Milakpur had taken financial assistance from the Corporation to the tune of Rs.9 lacs. The original sale documents had never been deposited with the Corporation and were still available with the legal heirs of Jati Ram. Hence, the suit for declaration filed. Defendant-Corporation in its written statement averred that M/s Shree Krishan Cement had taken working capital loan of Rs.9 lacs on 25.11.1994 and to secure its repayment, Jati Ram and Naresh Kumar RSA No.3561 of 2010 ::2:: had created equitable mortgage of their land in favour of the Corporation. Since the amount had not been repaid by the Firm, the same was liable to be recovered from the property owned by Jati Ram and Naresh Kumar Jain. The original title deed and mortgage deed were not traceable. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court. “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (iv) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD (v) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties ? OPD (vi) Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared that the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants as joint owners-in-possession of the suit land in equal shares. Defendant No.1 was restrained from taking any action qua sale/transfer or dealing with the suit land in any manner. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant-Corporation filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.2010, the said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Hissar. Hence, the present appeal filed by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, defendant-Corporation had failed to prove the mortgage deed in pursuance thereof they were carrying out auction RSA No.3561 of 2010 ::3:: proceedings of the land in question. Since the suit land had not been established to have been mortgaged with the Corporation, the Courts below rightly restrained the Corporation from auctioning the suit land. Plaintiffs had purchased the suit property prior to the date of alleged mortgage executed by the owners in favour of the Corporation. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. January 25, 2011 (SABINA) sukhpreet JUDGE