AVTAR SINGH @BACHAN KAUR Vs. GURBACHAN KAUR ALIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is by one Avtar Singh who is successor-in-interest of plaintiff Sawinder Singh alias Surinder Singh (for brevity, 'Sawinder Singh') son of Hakam Singh who had originally filed the suit for possession by redemption of 1/2 share of southern side of the house situated at Khui Wali Gali, Mohalla Simble, Batala. During the pendency of the suit, the mortgage was redeemed vide receipt dated 25.5.1994 and the suit filed by Sawinder Singh the original plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage in respect of the suit house was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed as infructuous. The trial Court further pointed out that during the pendency of the suit Sawinder Singh has sold his share in the disputed house to Avtar Singh and appellant Avtar Singh was substituted as plaintiff vide order dated 18.12.1993. Both the Courts have concurrently found that mortgage had been redeemed by Jasbir Kaur vide receipt dated 25.5.1994 after purchasing the share of defendant- respondent 1 Gurbachan Kaur. It has also been held that nothing survives in the suit once the mortgage is redeemed by the attorney of defendant-respondent 1 Gurbachan Kaur. The facts are made absolutely clear by the Additional District Judge in his judgment which reads as under :-

(2.) MR . M.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has remained unable to advance any argument, which may persuade me to take a view different than the one taken by the Courts below. Once the mortgage is redeemed by one of the co-mortgagee, then the relief of possession by redemption of mortgage claimed by the plaintiff-appellant cannot be granted. Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. No question of law much less the substantive question of law has been raised. The findings are based on evidence and it cannot be said that the approach adopted by both the courts below is perfunctory in character. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.