R.S.A.No.136 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.136 of 2005 Date of Decision : 27.08.2009 Yunus ...Appellant Versus Nasru and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The legal heir of the plaintiff, is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff has claimed title over the suit property on account of failure of the defendants to redeem the suit land within 30 years from the date of mortgage. The said claim of the plaintiff has been negated by both the Courts below on the ground that the land measuring 4 Kanals is not proved to be mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff and in fact defendant no.27 is the mortgagee. In view of the said fact, the suit was dismissed by the Courts below. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession as mortgagee. Such finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. It could not be R.S.A.No.136 of 2005 2 pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 27.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE