R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) THE facts arising in the instant appeal are not in dispute. Dr. Vidya Sagar, predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs -respondent No. 1 to 12 mortgaged two shops in favor of Dr. Vishwa Nath, predecessor of the appellants -defendants for mortgage sum of Rs. 4,000/ - vide registered mortgage deed dated 09.09.1964. The mortgage deed proved on record of the trial Court is Ex. P -1. This was usufructuary mortgage for a period of 10 years. The suit was filed for redemption of the shops on 30.05.1980, which was contested only by Dr. Vishwa Nath, the mortgagee whom appellants are representing in the instant appeal. Plea was also raised by Dr. Vishwa Nath that disputed shops were Muslim evacuee property and the mortgage deed is the result of fraud. Learned trial Court framed the following issues from the above pleadings of the parties: - "1. Whether defendant No. 1 can deny the right of Dr. Vidya Sagar to mortgage the property as owner? OPP
(2.) WHETHER Dr. Vidya Sagar concealed and practiced fraud that the property was Muslim evacuee property, if so, its effect? OPP 4. Whether defendant No. 1 cannot take up the plea as covered in para No. 2? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for mis -joinder of cause of action and parties? OPD 7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the property even on the basis of mortgage deed dated 02.03.1943 produced by defendant No. 1? OPP 7 -A. Whether defendants are entitled to compensatory costs of Rs. 5,000/ -. 7 -B. Whether Rehabilitation Authorities, Jullundur are necessary party? OPD 8. Relief." 2. The suit was decreed. First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed by appellants and the same was dismissed. The appellants are here in the Regular Second Appeal (RSA) to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the judgments passed by the Courts below and records of the trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions of law: - "1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as regards the evacuee property in the light of Section 16 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. 2) Whether the right of redemption could be invoked by the plaintiff when the defendants had already purchased the property.";