High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ram Parshad & Ors v. Summer & Ors - RSA-4910-2003  RD-P&H 922 (17 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 4910 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 7, 2006
Ram Parshad and others
Summer and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the appellants.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiffs having lost before learned first Appellate Court have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. They filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are the mortgagees in possession of the land in question and the fore-fathers of the defendants had mortgaged the suit land with the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs. Since the mortgage in question had not been redeemed by the defendants within limitation, therefore, by efflux of time the plaintiffs have became the owners of the suit property.
The defendants were proceeded ex-parte by the learned trial Court.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. On such R.S.A. No. 4910 of 2003 (O&M) 
reappraised, the learned first Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs have not been able to show the date of the original mortgage and as such could not claim that the period of limitation had expired for redemption. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Sh.Shiv Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued that during the course of the present appeal, an application has been filed by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, a copy of mutation dated June 23, 1914 has been sought to be placed on record.
According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid mutation duly proves the date of the mortgage.
I am afraid, the aforesaid document sought to be relied upon by the appellants by way of additional evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The land depicted in the said document is not shown to be connected with the land in question. The aforesaid document does not advance the case of the plaintiffs in any manner. Consequently, the application for additional evidence is dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 7, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.