- (1.) Present regular second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, against concurrent findings of facts having been recorded by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Court of first instance and first appeal having been dismissed by the first Appellate Court.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first instance. Relevant facts of the case that plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that she is owner in possession of the house, which was constructed by her after purchasing the land underneath the house from Baljit Kaur wife of Kashmira Singh vide sale deed dated 6.6.1972 and registered on 7.6.1972. Roshan Lal, who was on visiting terms to the house of the plaintiff, had committed theft of original sale deed, which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/owner when she received the notice on 16.10.2001 from defendant No.2. However, plaintiff had never executed any sort of document in favour of defendants No.1 & 2, nor she had mortgaged the house in dispute in their favour. She never stood guarantor or surety of defendant No.3 to defendants No.1 & 2. The alleged mortgage deed must be a result of fraud and impersonation. Even the photo, if any, appearing in the alleged mortgage deed does not relate to the plaintiff and the same was brought to the notice of defendants No.1 & 2 but they did not care. As such, necessity of the suit.
(3.) Defendants No.1 & 2 contested the suit inter alia taking the plea that suit property stands mortgaged as collateral security in favour of Roshan Industries. However, in order to avoid legal liability of mortgagor, in the account of Roshan Industries, the plaintiff has taken wrong plea that original sale deed standing in her name had been taken away by Roshan Lal. She had not created any mortgage deed in favour of defendants No.1 & 2.;