- (1.) Present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby suit filed by him was dismissed by Civil Judge [Junior Divison] Nabha vide judgment and decree dated 9.7.2014. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2015.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.
(3.) Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration on the ground that defendant Lachman Dass [since deceased] was the managing Partner of Commission Agency firm, namely, M/s Lachman Dass & Sons. The plaintiff used to sell his crops through this firm and used to take small loans and and thereafter used to adjust the same at the time of sale of his crops. Relations between both the parties were of utmost confidence. In the month of July, 2009, running account between the parties was settled and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was found due towards the plaintiff. The defendant insisted for execution for the document of his land in his favour as collateral security. Signatures were obtained by way of misrepresentation. The defendant entered into criminal conspiracy with Gurpal Singh, Deed Writer, Gurpreet Singh, Nambardar of village Sudhewal and Parminder Singh, Joint Sub Registrar, Bhadson and some employees of the said office. Alleged mortgage deed is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff never appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar, Bhadson for registration of alleged mortgage deed. There was no reason for making payment of Rs.15.00 lacs as mortgage money for 5 Bighas of land whereas 5 Bighas of land could be purchased for a value much less than Rs.15.00 lacs. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property even before the execution of alleged mortgage deed and even the recital in the mortgage deed are in correct. The manipulated photograph was pasted on the alleged mortgage deed and that was affixed by photographic trick. Thereafter, the defendant tried to take forcible possession in the 2nd week of May, 2010 and started claiming that suit property has been mortgaged for Rs.15.00 lakhs and as such, plaintiff filed the present suit.;