R.S.A.No.136 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.136 of 2005
Date of Decision : 27.08.2009
Yunus ...Appellant
Versus
Nasru and others ...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: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The legal heir of the plaintiff, is in second appeal aggrieved
against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the
plaintiff has claimed title over the suit property on account of failure of
the defendants to redeem the suit land within 30 years from the date of
mortgage.
The said claim of the plaintiff has been negated by both the
Courts below on the ground that the land measuring 4 Kanals is not
proved to be mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff and in fact defendant
no.27 is the mortgagee. In view of the said fact, the suit was dismissed
by the Courts below.
Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that
the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession as mortgagee. Such
finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. It could not be
R.S.A.No.136 of 2005 2
pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into
consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be
permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal.
Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law
arises for consideration by this Court.
Dismissed.
27.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE