IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A.No.3556 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Ravinder Kumar .....Appellant Vs. Swaran Kaur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession by way of redemption of the shop in dispute was decreed. In his defence, the case set up by the appellant was that his status qua the shop in dispute was of a tenant under the plaintiff- respondent and the registered mortgage deed dated 10.12.1997 was a sham transaction. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence held that the appellant was a mortgagee under the plaintiff- respondent vide registered mortgage deed dated 10.12.1997 and the plaintiff- respondent having tendered the amount of mortgage was entitled to redemption of the mortgaged property. It has been argued before this Court that from the evidence on record, it is clearly established that the alleged mortgage deed was a camouflage and in fact, a tenancy was created between the parties by the aforesaid document. R.S.A.No.3556 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is noticed only to be rejected. Admittedly, the aforesaid mortgage deed is a registered document and the execution of the same is also not in dispute. Presumption of genuineness is attached to the aforesaid document. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act clearly bars the consideration of oral evidence to contradict the contents of the aforesaid document. In fact no legal evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel to contradict the contents of aforesaid document. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 19, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE