RSA No.4203 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4203 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:19.07.2010 Amolak Ram .... appellant Versus Sukhbir Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sushil Gautam,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to mortgage allegedly executed by respondent, was dismissed. As per the averments, at the time of agreement respondent agreed to mortgage his land and the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the respondent and only a sum of Rs.6000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the mortgage deed. It is further case of the appellant that respondent failed to execute the mortgage deed in his favour on the stipulated date. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the land in dispute was mortgaged by Dharma, father of the respondent which was got redeemed in the year 1993 and the present agreement of mortgage alleged to be executed on 23.12.1998 was a concocted story. RSA No.4203 of 2008(O & M) 2 Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that appellant was not entitled to the relief prayed. Still not satisfied, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. It is not in dispute that a mortgage deed can be redeemed by the mortgager on expiry of the stipulated period in such a mortgage deed. In the present case, admittedly no such time limit was stipulated, meaning thereby, the time was not the essence of the alleged agreement and the respondent could have got redeemed his land any time. In this view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the appellant has no vested right to get the specific performance of an agreement of mortgage of suit land in his favour as prayed by him. Even otherwise, while dismissing the appeal, the first Appellate Court has observed that the appellant is at liberty to maintain a suit for recovery of alleged earnest money subject to limitation. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 19.07.2010 neenu