1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2653 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: 25 .5.2007 Pashi Ram ...Appellant VERSUS Karambir etc. ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Permod Kohli,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing the civil appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. The present appellant preferred a suit for permanent injunction on the strength of a mortgage deed dated 18.8.1994 which is said to be executed by Karambir Singh, 2 defendant/respondent no.1, in respect of the house for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The same property was also mortgaged in favour of Randhir Singh, defendant/ respondent no.3 for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The mortgage deed is admittedly not a registered deed, though it contains stipulation of delivery of possession of the property. Respondent no.2/defendant disputed the possession of the appellant and she pleaded her possession over the suit property, on the strength of an agreement to sell dated 23.1.1995. During the course of trial, defendant/respondent no.2, Phulpati produced evidence from the Public Health Department to establish her possession over the suit property. Both the courts below have accepted the possession of respondent no.2/defendant, Phulpati over the suit property and consequently dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Substantial questions of law framed by the appellant in this appeal are in fact not the question of law, but relates to reappraisal of evidence. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25 .5.2007 MFK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:YES/NO 3