R.S.A No. 3325 of 2005 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3325 of 2005 Date of decision : September 04, 2009. Kaka Singh, ... Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and another, ... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for redemption of the land in dispute. The land which was in the ownership of the plaintiff/appellant was initially mortgaged by his mother during his minority and thereafter sold vide two sale deeds to the respondents. The appellant challenged the sale deeds which were set aside by the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1971. The matter was carried in appeal wherein a compromise was arrived at and on the basis of which it was held that in case R.S.A No. 3325 of 2005 ::2:: the respondents pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant by 15.1.1973, the said appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed and the sale deeds in favour of the respondents would be deemed to have been confirmed. However, in the year 2001, the appellant filed a suit for redemption on the ground that no payment was made to him in the year 1973 as envisaged by the compromise and that he should be permitted to redeem the property by payment of mortgage amount of Rs.278/-. Both the Courts have held that payment of Rs.2,000/- consequent to the compromise in the year 1973 stood proved. It is in these circumstances that this appeal has been filed and the following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether both the Courts below were bound by the order passed in the civil suit titled as Bhura Nand Kaka Singh versus Jarnail Singh dated 1.2.1969? ii) Whether the controversy that amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid or not, can be decided by the order passed in appeal ? iii) Whether the land was redeemed or not, can be seen from the original file of the appellate Court which passed a conditional order dated 15.1.1973 ?” With regard to question no. (i), it is conceded that a compromise had indeed taken place and, therefore, this question has to be answered against the appellant. With regard to question no. (ii), this is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondents did not produce the original receipt evidencing payment of Rs.2,000/-. However, both the Courts have noticed that DW2-Bachan Singh R.S.A No. 3325 of 2005 ::3:: had deposed that the amount of Rs.2,000/- had been paid in his presence and that a receipt had been signed to which he was a witness. The Courts below have further taken into consideration the DDR Ex.D1, dated 18.1.1999 wherein the respondents reported loss of the original receipt. It would be seen that the said DDR predates the suit by more than two years. In any case, I have not been persuaded to hold that this finding of fact has been arrived at either on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Once question No. (ii) is held against the appellant, question No. (iii) has become academic and need not be decided. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 04, 2009. JUDGE `kk'