Sabina, J. - (1.) 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 a loan of Rs.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.
(2.) 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 Rs.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.
(3.) 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.;