RSA No.3436 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3436 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Megh Singh .....Appellant v. Smt.Suman Lata and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. C.M.No.10032-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application delay of 129 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3436 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.9.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Rewari, dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 12.5.1998 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kosli, dismissing the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that mortgage deed No.173 dated 12.5.1998 is illegal, void and RSA No.3436 of 2010(O&M) -2- not binding upon his rights and that he is not liable to pay any amount to respondents-defendants alongwith decree for permanent injunction restraining them from recovering any amount from him. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants on the plea that he had taken loan of `2,50,000/- for purchasing a tractor and executed the mortgage deed in favour of respondent-bank on 12.5.1998, which was also got registered and hence he is liable to repay the said amount. Plea has also been taken that he has already made part payment of the loan amount and that he also admitted to have taken the loan before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kosli. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Rewari. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that a fraud was committed upon him at the instance of late Jagdish Chander, who was partner of the firm, M/s. Goyal Agros, dealing in sale and purchase of Eicher Tractors and that in fact he had applied for taking loan of `2,50,000/- for purchasing of a tractor and that the mortgage deed was got executed regarding land of present appellant-plaintiff by playing fraud upon him. However, both the courts on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that mortgage deed has been duly proved to have been executed by present appellant-plaintiff. Mortgage deed contains signature as well as thumb impression of the appellant. Though he had engaged an handwriting and finger expert, however, he only got compared signatures of appellant on the disputed mortgage deed. He had not got compared his thumb RSA No.3436 of 2010(O&M) -3- impressions on the mortgage deed. On the other hand, respondents- defendants examined a finger print expert, who opined that thumb impressions on the mortgage deed are of present appellant only. He also admitted having taken loan for purchasing a tractor by mortgaging the land before SDO (Civil) Kosli. Dharampal, Lumberdar is an attesting witness of the mortgage deed and he also deposed that appellant-plaintiff executed the same and got the same registered before the Sub Registrar. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 12.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge