R.S.A.No. 3735 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3735 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2011 Jagdish Singh ......Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jagdish filed a suit for declaration that the mortgage deed dated 28.1.1999 was illegal null and void and was not binding on the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land in question. The defendants in collusion with scribe and witnesses had prepared the forged deed in question and had also got the same registered from the office of Sub Registrar, Sampla. Plaintiff had never taken any loan from the defendants. On an earlier occasion, plaintiff had taken R.S.A.No. 3735 of 2010 (O&M) 2 a loan of ` 4,00,000/- from the defendants and had executed a mortgage deed in the first week of January, 1999. However, the plaintiff had repaid Rs.3,70,000/- to the defendants but the mortgage deed in question was not the said mortgage deed. Defendants in their written statement averred that the mortgage deed in question had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. The other contentions in the plaint were denied. Plaintiff had taken a loan of ` 4,00,000/- from the defendants and had executed a mortgage deed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the mortgage deed No.1189/1 dated 28.1.1999 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee ? OPD 5. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 3735 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The mortgage deed in question is dated 28.1.1999. Defendants in order to prove the due execution of the said mortgage deed examined the deed writer Balram Singh as DW-2, Bijender Singh Reader to Naib Tehsildar as DW-1 and Jaspal Naib Tehsildar as DW-5. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution and registration of the mortgage deed in question. The testimony of PW-1 Lakhi Ram failed to rebut the testimony of the witnesses examined by the defendants. Since the mortgage deed is duly registered document and has been proved by the defendants by examining relevant witnesses in this regard, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2011 anita