IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3970 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Deshpal and others … Appellants Versus Sanjay and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 11428-C of 2011: C.M. is allowed. The legal representatives of Smt. Gian Wati as mentioned in para 1 of the application are ordered to be brought on record. RSA No. 3970 of 2011: The only dispute around which this appeal revolves is whether the land in dispute was orally mortgaged to Ghisa son of Bodhan, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.10 for a sum of Rs.200/- in the year 1962 and that mortgage was usufructory in nature. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have come to the conclusion that the claim set up by the plaintiffs that the mortgage was oral has not been proved. In order to prove that the property in dispute was mortgaged orally, the plaintiff No.1, Deshpal, had stepped into the witness-box and stated that the mortgage was oral whereas PW-2 Ram Gopal, produced by the plaintiffs stated that the mortgage was in writing and was written by Patwari. There being two different statements with regard to the mortgage, both the Courts held that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-1 Deshpal or PW-2 Ram Gopal and the same strengthens the version of the defendants that the suit land was never mortgaged with the plaintiffs. On the other hand, it stands proved on record that the land out of khasra No. 367 was sold to defendant No.9 and this fact RSA No. 3970 of 2011 -2- was also admitted by the plaintiff, PW-1 Deshpal, in his cross-examination. The lower appellate Court in para 19 of the judgment has observed “ xxx xxx xxx. Further, a perusal of sale-deeds Ex.D3, Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 shows that respondent No.9 has purchased land from appellant and had developed a colony after taking due permission from MOF and has carved out plots over there, therefore, the appellants being not in possession of the suit land cannot claim any injunction against the respondents.” Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. October 03, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE