RSA No.4086 of 2004 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4086 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 Nasib Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Karam Singh and another .......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: Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land by efflux of time after the expiry of the period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage, has been dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land was mortgaged in the year 1952 by one Karam Singh, in favour of Bhag Singh. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Bhag Singh, who claim the aforesaid declaration that after expiry of the period of 30 years, the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit property. Both the Courts have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove mortgage of the land in favour of Bhag Singh RSA No.4086 of 2004 (O&M) (2) in the year 1952 and consequently, there is no question of acquiring ownership rights by efflux of time. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to produce Rapat Roznamcha dated 25.4.1952 in support of the contention that, in fact, the property was mortgaged by Karam Singh, in favour of Bhag Singh. I do not find any merit in the application for leading additional evidence moved by the appellants in the present second appeal. The factum of mortgage was the primary fact required to be proved by the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have failed to produce the relevant evidence in the first instance, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence to fill up the lacunae in the present second appeal. In fact, allowing of the application to lead additional evidence at this stage will lead to re-opening of the trial, which is neither fair nor reasonable. Consequently, the application for additional evidence is dismissed. Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan v. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) PLR page 1, has held that the mortgagee cannot seek declaration of acquiring ownership by efflux of time. Therefore, even in the event of proof of mortgage, the appellants would not be entitled to the declaration sought for. In view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case, I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20-07-2009 ds