In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 2364 of 2008 Date of decision: July 31, 2008 Nachhattar Singh and others ... Appellants versus Ved Parkash and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a mortgage suit for recovery of Rs.1,58,000/- along with pendent-lite interest @ 18% per annum against the performa respondent No.2, alleging therein that performa respondent No.2-Harnek Singh was advanced a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- and he had mortgaged his agricultural land measuring 38 kanals 16 marlas as security for repayment of loan situated at village Rori Tehsil and District Sirsa, vide two registered mortgage deeds dated 28.3.1997 and 18.5.1999. However, Harnek Singh sold the land to the respondents No.3 to 6. The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2006. During the pendency of the suit before the trial court, the performa respondents No.3 to 6 had further sold the land in question to the appellants No.2 and 3 on 12.12.2003. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the respondent No.2 and a preliminary decree was passed for the recovery of Rs.1,58,000/- from Harnek Singh along with pendent-lite interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its actual R.S.A. No. 2364 of 2008 -2- realization and it was further ordered that if the defendant does not make the payment of the decretal amount within a period of three months from the date of decree, then the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the recovery effected by sale of the mortgaged property and the decree would be treated as final. The first appellate court vide its judgment dated 8.2.2008 dismissed the appeal of the vendees. Now the subsequent vendee has preferred this appeal. Since it was a mortgage suit for recovery of Rs.1,58,000/- and there was a definite stipulation that the amount could be recovered by sale of mortgaged property, therefore, subsequent sale of the property would not effect the rights of the plaintiff to recover the same which was already sold to the present appellants. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limni. July 31, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge