IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4399 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Hira Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Punjab and Sind Bank and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Jatinder J.C. Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration to the effect that entries in the revenue record to the effect that property in dispute stands mortgaged with the defendant-respondents are illegal and not binding upon their rights with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal as pleaded are that the appellants purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 26.9.2001 and 20.6.2001 for valuable consideration and they had no knowledge that the land in question was mortgaged to the defendant- respondents against any loan by the vendor. The appellants claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land being bona fide purchasers alleging that at the time of purchase of the suit property, the revenue record did not mention that the land in question was under mortgage with the respondents and they came to know about the mortgage by the vendor in favour of the defendant-respondents only on 27.8.2005 when the respondents threatened to alienate the suit land in order to recover their loan amount raised against him. RSA No.4399 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact holding that the appellants cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and without notice and protect their rights under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act because the appellants failed to prove that they acted with due diligence or made any reasonable enquiries regarding any encumbrances over the land sought to be purchased by them. It is not in dispute that the suit property was under Equitable Mortgage with the defendant-respondents by deposit of title deeds of the suit property with the Bank. Thus, in these circumstances, what kind of reasonable inquiries had been made by the appellants regarding the property sought to be produced is anybody's guess as they had not even bothered to see and verify the original title deeds from the vendor. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the findings so recorded by the Courts below and in view of the aforesaid facts established on record, the findings of the Courts below cannot be held to be perverse warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed in limine. September 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE