RSA No. 4841 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4841 of 2011 Date of decision:7.12.2011 Goldy Kumar ... Appellant versus Tajinder Singh alias Kala and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate, with Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. ... JORA SINGH, J. Regular Second Appeal by Goldy Kumar to challenge the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2011 passed by District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kapurthala, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. Appellant filed the main suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that he is in possession of the shop in dispute situated near Chowk, Top Khana Road, Kapurthala. Earlier rent was Rs.900/- per month. Shop was let out by respondents No.1 to 3 in the year 1997. Later on, rent was increased to Rs.1,000/- per month. Rent was paid from 1.5.1999 to 6.6.2003. Respondents No.1 to 3 obtained loan from respondents No.4 and 5. Property owned by them including the shop in dispute was mortgaged without the knowledge of the appellant. Respondents No.4 and 5 threatened to take possession of the shop in dispute. Respondents No.1 to 3 were ex parte before the trial Court. Allegation of respondents No.4 and 5 is to the effect that RSA No. 4841 of 2011 2 property owned by respondents No.1 to 3 including the shop in dispute was mortgaged. Receipts alleged to have been issued by Partap Singh, respondent No.3, are forged and fabricated because respondent No.3 has no concern with the property in dispute. In fact, Satnam Kaur wife of Tajinder Singh was the owner of the property in dispute and the same was mortgaged. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is tenant in the premises in dispute and is in possession of the same since 1997? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitle4d to injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct, omission and commission to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 7. Relief.” After going through the evidence on the file, trial Court opined that the shop in dispute was owned by Satnam Kaur and the same was mortgaged in favour of Punjab Financial Corporation and Punjab Financial Corporation has taken possession of the shop in dispute. RSA No. 4841 of 2011 3 Finding of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Partap Singh is the land lord. Shop in dispute was let out to the appellant. Rent is being paid to the land lord. Without knowledge of the appellant, property including the shop in dispute was mortgaged in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 and now respondents No.4 and 5 intend to take possession of the shop in dispute. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below rightly observed that property in dispute is owned by Satnam Kaur wife of Tajinder Singh and the same was mortgaged by Satnam Kaur in favour of Punjab Financial Corporation. No rent note was executed. Shop in dispute was in possession of the appellant but possession of the property in dispute was taken by respondents No.4 and 5. Appellant when appeared in Court, then admitted that possession of the property in dispute was taken by respondents No.4 and 5. Property in dispute was mortgaged by respondents No.1 and 2 with respondents No.4 and 5. First Appellate Court has also held that property in dispute owned by Satnam Kaur was mortgaged with respondents No. 4 and 5. Proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act were initiated and respondents No.4 and 5 have taken possession of the property in dispute. Partap Singh was not competent to let out the shop in dispute because property was mortgaged by the owner as per registered mortgage deed (Ex.D1). Appellant is not in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant. Main suit is for permanent injunction but the appellant has RSA No. 4841 of 2011 4 admitted that the property in dispute was owned by Satnam Kaur and was mortgaged with respondents No.4 and 5. In view of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, respondents No.4 and 5 have taken possession of the property in dispute. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by both the Courts below. Impugned judgment is to be set aside if evidence on the file was misread or judgment is perverse. No substantial question of law is involved. For the reasons recorded above, RSA No.4841 of 2011 without merit is dismissed. 7.12.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE